Mr. Speaker, I move—

INTRODUCTION

The economic climate of the past year has been favourable and the South African Railways have shared in the country’s prosperity. An analysis of the traffic handled reveals a high level of business activity until late in August last year. From then onwards the disinflationary measures introduced by the Government took greater effect and a slowdown in the economy was evident in the working results of the country’s national transport undertaking.

Nevertheless, as far as overall performance is concerned, the current year has been one of the best, albeit owing to somewhat fortuitous circumstances. I refer to the resuscitation of the agricultural sector, the relaxations of import control, the building up of trade inventories and stocks of strategic commodities and the increase in harbour activity arising from the closure of the Suez Canal.

From an operating point of view, this year has been a strenuous one. The shortage of manpower became even more acute, but thanks to a high level of productivity, the benefits accruing from the expansion and modernization of our facilities, and above all the outstanding co-operation of the staff, the overall transport demand has been met.

FUTURE OUTLOOK

The expectations for the coming year are somewhat divergent. Whilst industrialists predict a moderately good year, commercial opinion is less optimistic. Imports of commercial goods during the last quarter of 1967 did not maintain the previous year’s level. This could be due to the effectiveness of the Government’s disinflationary measures and the considerable build-up of inventories during the early months of the year. Conditions in the agricultural sector are not as promising as they were last year and it is doubtful whether the overall production in this sector will match the level of the previous season. In addition, there are the possible effects of devaluation of the currencies of certain countries.

In the light of these circumstances the conclusion is that whilst the economy will continue to expand, the growth rate in revenue-earning goods traffic is not likely to equal the average of 5 per cent maintained during the past two years.

ANALYSIS OF WORKING RESULTS

There has been some comment on the working results of the current year, and I think it is my duty to indicate briefly the reasons for the considerable excess on the original estimate.

In presenting my Budget last year, I intimated that the prospects for 1967-’68 were encouraging and that there was considerable optimism. The expansion in the economy has been beyond expectation, and this is revealed in practically every facet of both commerce and industry. The Railways have long been known as the barometer of the national economy, and the surpluses on the monthly results of working are no more than a reflection of the buoyancy in business conditions generally.

The Budget for 1967-’68 provided for a total increase of 7.85 per cent in the Administration’s revenues. In a survey which the Stellenbosch Bureau of Economic Research published a couple of months later, the increase in the gross domestic product for 1967 was estimated at 7.9 per cent. The Bureau now estimates the growth rate at nearly 10 per cent, and the latest estimate of the Administration’s total revenue shows an improvement of 10.4 per cent over the previous year. It is apparent, therefore, that Railway earnings have merely moved in harmony with other economic indicators. Besides the benefits derived from the economic expansion, the Department, of course, also profited by the Government’s stockpiling programme.

In addition, the results of working were also influenced by the fact that expenditure has fallen short of the estimate. Last year I reported on the shortage of staff and the difficulty experienced in filling vacancies in certain grades. The position has deteriorated and the Department has been called upon to an even greater extent to meet the increased traffic demand with a smaller labour force by the efficient deployment of all its resources.

NEW WORKS PROGRAMME

Before I briefly comment on the new works programme I must emphasize that progress on such works is dictated by the availability of funds and manpower, and by the nature of things all works sanctioned annually cannot be completed in the same year. Consequently there is every year a carry-over of work still to be completed. Hon. members will observe from the new Brown Book that there is an accumulated programme of works sanctioned at a cost of R471 million still to be completed.

With an average allocation of R128 million of loan funds per year, the Administration would, therefore, have a work programme of several years, even if no new items whatsoever were added. The expanding economy of the country does not, however, permit of such a course. New rolling-stock must be acquired and additional facilities provided as required. However, in the general spirit of the Government’s intention that both the public and the private sectors should spend less, State Departments have this year had to curtail their loan fund requirements. The Administration’s own programme has been pruned by some R10 million, but I wish to give the House the assurance that despite these restrictions the progress on urgent and essential works will not be retarded.

Dealing specifically with some of the major projects, I should like to inform the House of the progress that has been made.

The new railway lines from Chiselhurst to East London harbour and from Reunion to Umlazi have been opened to traffic. As hon. members will recall, the former line was built to permit of the conveyance of maize direct to the new grain elevator, while the latter line was constructed to serve a Bantu resettlement area. The doubling of the line between Klerksdorp and Potchefstroom has been completed, with the result that ore traffic from the Postmasburg line to the Transvaal and Natal is now moving more freely.

Work on the new line from Metsi to Kaapmuiden, which will bypass the Kruger National Park and which will cater for the expanding ore traffic from Phalaborwa, is progressing and also the important new line from Vryheid to Empangeni, which is being built to provide relief on the Natal main line and ultimately to serve the proposed new harbour at Richard’s Bay.

Good progress is being made with the various line improvement and electrification projects. The doubling of the Cambridge-Blaney section is nearing completion and will be opened in stages during the second half of 1968. The deviations on the Springfontein-East London and the Kroonstad-Harrismith lines are scheduled for completion during the first half of 1969. The work on the latter section is being carried out preparatory to the electrification of this important link between the Orange Free State and Natal.

The electrified line from Kamfersdam to Hotazel has been opened to traffic as far as Postmasburg and the remaining portion of the work will be completed before the end of the year. The extension of electrification from Glencoe to Hlobane will be completed by about the same time.

The new diesel running shed at Port Elizabeth is expected to become available in June this year and the new goods layout at Kroonstad during March next year. Contracts have been let for the first stage of the new goods depot at Bayhead, Durban.

At Table Bay Harbour work has commenced on the construction of the repair pier off M Berth in the Duncan Basin. Progress on the provision of additional pre-cooling space at D and E Berths for a further 5,000 cubic tons of fruit has not been up to schedule, primarily as a result of delays in the delivery of imported materials. A portion of the new facilities has, however, already been brought into operation and the contractor is being pressed to speed up the completion of the work.

Pier No. 1 at Salisbury Island, Durban, was completed during October last year and the first cargo shed and wharf cranes were placed in service at the same time. At present two of the seven berths along this pier are in use as commercial berths and four as lay-by berths, while one is being used by the contractor. By the end of January, 1969, the remaining three cargo sheds and all wharf cranes will be available and all seven berths will by then be in use for commercial purposes. The two berths along the cross quay will become available for use as lay-by berths early in 1969.

Since the beginning of the year, one diesel and 76 electric locomotives, 60 motor coaches and 159 plain trailers for use on suburban services and 5,239 goods wagons of various types, including 50 narrow-gauge trucks, have been placed in service.

Rolling-stock already sanctioned but still on order, or to be ordered, includes 201 electric, 90 diesel and eight narrow-gauge steam locomotives, 316 main-line passenger vehicles, 153 suburban motor coaches, 399 plain trailers and 7,872 goods vehicles, including 10 narrow-gauge trucks and 18 narrow-gauge guards vans.

Despite the curtailment of capital expenditure to which I have referred, hon. members will realize that the need to conserve capital cannot be allowed to jeopardize the soundness and adequacy of the economy’s infra-structure. Provision has, therefore, been made in the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for a further 50 electric locomotives, 220 main-line passenger vehicles, 71 motor coaches, 152 plain trailers, 4,642 standard-gauge goods wagons, 30 narrow-gauge trucks and six narrow-gauge guards vans.

There has been considerable speculation since I announced the decision to extend Cape Town harbour on the seaward side of the Duncan Dock. In order to afford commercial industrial and shipping interests a further opportunity to examine the proposed scheme in the light of their particular needs, I have appointed a committee on which they are represented to re-examine the proposals. I had hoped to be in possession of the Committee’s report by now, but the Chairman has indicated that he is not yet able to report.

As hon. members know, I have already introduced a Bill for the construction of a new railway line from Empangeni to Richard’s Bay. This line will initially serve the proposed aluminium smelter near Richard’s Bay and eventually the projected new harbour. Provision for the new line is made in the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for 1968-’69. Provision is also made for an additional tanker berth at Island View, Durban Hon. members will recall that the pipeline, now operating very successfully between Durban and Johannesburg, was specifically designed for the conveyance of white petroleum products. Although this traffic takes up little more than two-thirds of the line’s capacity, the Government has, as I explained when I submitted the Additional Estimates for the current year to the House, deemed it essential in the national interest to authorize the construction of an additional pipeline, principally for the conveyance of crude oil, via Empangeni to the Reef. Provision is accordingly made in the Estimates for the construction of this pipeline at a cost of some R42 million. It is expected that tenders for its construction will be awarded in May, 1968, and the completion date is approximately 12 months later.

In view of the rapid growth in air traffic in the international, regional and domestic fields, I have had a complete survey made of the activities of South African Airways, bearing in mind particularly future traffic potential. The expansion of the airline’s operations over a wider area, and the need to acquire the latest types of aircraft so as to enable S.A. Airways to maintain its acknowledged high reputation and standing with other airlines of the world, were also taken into consideration.

It is obvious that the fleet must be substantially augmented. Delivery of new aircraft, especially new types, cannot be procured at short notice. After a close study of the types available to meet the requirements of the S.A. Airways, orders have been placed for three Boeing 747, one Boeing 707 aircraft for the international services and one Boeing 737 to supplement the fleet employed on internal services.

The 737 and 707 type aircraft are scheduled to arrive in November and December, 1969, respectively, whilst the Boeing 747’s cannot be delivered before October to December, 1971.

The Boeing 747, or jumbo jet as it is called, although subsonic, will have a cruising speed of between 610 and 630 m.p.h. which is about 20 m.p.h faster than the Boeing 707. This new type of aircraft on order is designed with a configuration to carry 363 passengers and baggage, together with 37,000 lbs. of freight. In other words, its total capacity is equivalent to about two-and-a-half times the number of passengers conveyed by a Boeing 707, plus 37,000 lbs. of freight. The freight capacity alone is equal to the full carrying capacity of a Boeing 707.

Each Boeing 747 will cost approximately R15 million, but its unit operating costs are estimated to be about a third less than those of Boeing 707’s. It will be noted that an amount of R54.8 million is provided against item No. 1120 of the Brown Book, with a cash provision of R5.5 million in 1968-’69, in respect of advance payments. Further capital investment will be necessary at a later stage for hangars and workshop buildings, as well as a simulator and other associated equipment.

Housing has long been recognized as a most important factor in ensuring a stabilized staff position. Some 42,500 of the Administration’s married staff are accommodated in departmental houses or in houses acquired with the Department’s assistance. For the coming year the new Brown Book provides for an amount of R5.5 million to be spent on departmental housing for the staff, and R3.5 million on loans under the two house ownership schemes. As the amounts repaid by way of redemption of housing loans, now averaging R4.8 million a year, are re-utilized to finance further loans to the staff, the Administration will make nearly R14 million available this year for housing. This represents the acquisition of some 1,300 additional houses Because of the limited number of applications received for loans under the Assisted House Ownership Scheme, due to the high rate of interest chargeable and the difficulty in raising housing loans, I deemed it expedient to reduce the amount appropriated by Parliament under this head for the current year by some R400,000. An equivalent amount was made available for the House Ownership Scheme under which the full amount of the loan is granted.

Having commented on some of the major new works already in hand or to be commenced and the rolling-stock, etc., being acquired to meet the country’s transport needs, I should like to give the House a brief indication of the steps being taken in other directions to meet present-day requirements. These include the need to operate longer and heavier trains to cope with the growth in traffic; modern communications and signalling systems to increase track capacity and to facilitate train control; intensive track maintenance of a high standard in order that heavy loads may be moved at high speeds; special types of goods stock to cater for specific commodities; and the intensive training of staff in modern procedures and techniques to man our services with the depleted labour resources at our disposal.

With the need to operate longer and heavier loads, the Administration has had to strengthen the drawgear of goods vehicles, improve the efficiency of the existing braking system, design lighter trucks that can carry heavy loads, and to improve the rollability of rolling-stock by using a new type of bogie equipped with roller-bearings. It has also been necessary to design and introduce special types of goods stock such as tank wagons to convey liquid products, cement and unslaked lime, refrigerated wagons for perishable commodities, trucks with a smooth interior finish which is particularly suitable for the conveyance of goods packed in cardboard containers and paper bags, as well as vehicles for palletized traffic and a new type of fish truck with a glass-fibre reinforced body.

On the civil engineering side the mechanization of track maintenance has enabled the Administration to reduce its staff complement considerably, both white and non-white, notwithstanding an increase of almost 60 per cent in the gross ton-miles of traffic moving over our lines. The high density of traffic, coupled with the faster speeds and heavier loads of trains over certain sections of line, demands a standard and tempo of track maintenance which is far beyond the capability of manual procedures.

In the field of electrical engineering the past few years have witnessed the advent of new communication and signalling systems and the electronic computer which have improved the standard of safety and efficiency in railway operation and streamlined administrative and other procedures.

Study groups are sent overseas from time to time to keep contact with the latest developments in the field of rail transport, but the initiative and ingenuity of the Administration’s own staff, who have pioneered many of the latest developments on the South African Railways, are not to be discounted.

Staff training continues to enjoy high priority in the Administration’s work programme. This applies to almost all groups of staff, both White and non-White, and includes not only functional training but also special courses in new management techniques and administrative procedures.

I now pass on to a review of the current year’s working under the following heads:

I deal firstly with goods.

Goods

As the Reserve Bank reported recently, there are indications that the restrictive monetary and fiscal measures applied by the authorities are now succeeding in their aim of reducing the excess monetary demand for goods and services, and this is confirmed by the trend in the Administration’s revenues.

During the first quarter of the financial year the tonnage of high-rated traffic exceeded the corresponding figure of 1966 by nearly 9 per cent. In the following quarter the increase was only 2.94 per cent and during the period October-December, .43 per cent.

The high rate of increase earlier in the year was due in large measure to the volume of merchandise imports. In the third quarter these fell below the level of 1966, and the total increase in revenue from high-rated goods for the first nine months of the year was only 9 per cent above the 1966 figure. There was a slight improvement during January, but it is too early to judge whether this will be maintained.

Low-rated goods reflected a steadier trend. Although the volume of export chrome and manganese was less than in the previous year, this was offset by increases in the tonnage of magnetite and iron ores and also the heavy shipments of maize. The total tonnage of low-rated goods for the nine months showed an increase of 6.4 per cent and earnings 15.75 per cent.

Goods revenue is now estimated at R384.3 million, i.e. R38.7 million, or 11.2 per cent, more than the figure for the preceding year. The high percentage increase is in part due to the revised tariffs being applicable for a full year as compared with only seven months in 1966/67.

Coal

As a result of the fairly severe winter and also by reason of the revised tariffs, revenue from coal during the period April to July exceeded the figure for the corresponding months of 1966 by R1.6 million. The traffic later decreased, however, and earnings for the period September-December were, in fact, R19,000 less than the corresponding figure for the previous year. The total tonnage to the end of December showed an increase of only 2.2 per cent on the 1966 figure, and revenue for the year is estimated at R54.5 million, i.e. R2.1 million more than in 1966/67.

Passenger Services

The number of first and second-class passengers is well below the previous year’s total, but in the third-class the number of journeys has risen by 5.4 per cent in the case of suburban and 2.2 per cent on long-distance trains. It is anticipated that passenger revenue will amount to R69.1 million, i.e. only 1.9 per cent more than in 1966/67.

Road Transport Services

The number of first-class passengers making use of the Administration’s Road Transport Services continues to decrease, but the number of third-class passenger journeys during the first nine months of the year increased by more than 9 per cent. The tonnage of goods rose by 3.5 per cent and cream traffic by 19 per cent. Livestock decreased by nearly 21 per cent as there was no movement of drought-stricken stock.

Road Transport revenue for 1967/68 is estimated at R16.8 million, or R700,000 more than in 1966/67.

Harbours

The harbours experienced a high level of activity throughout the year, and the volume of cargo handled, both imports and exports, rose by more than 34 per cent.

The increase in cargo discharged was in respect of merchandise, principally during the first five months of the financial year, and petroleum products, whilst the increase in exports comprised mainly maize, sugar and general cargo. Durban accounted for more than 50 per cent of the total tonnage handled at all harbours and Cape Town 25 per cent. During the period April to December, 1967, 10,734 oceangoing ships called at South African harbours, 2,380 being vessels diverted from Suez.

Wharfage dues for the year exceed the 1966-’67 total by R3.3 million, due initially to the relaxation of import control but also to the substantial volume of oil discharged and bunkered and the heavy maize exports.

Port and light dues and revenue from tugs show an increase of R2.5 million, largely on account of shipping diverted from Suez.

Total harbour revenue is now estimated at R41.2 million, i.e. R7.2 million, or 21 per cent, more than the preceding year.

Oil Pipelines

In addition to the other petroleum products, large consignments of crude oil and naphtha were conveyed by pipeline during the current year, and at times the volume of traffic reached such proportions that it became necessary to introduce a fourteen-day pumping cycle, which considerably reduced the quantity of slop normally accumulating as a result of intermixing.

There were three serious fires during the year, two as a result of the line being punctured by heavy earth-moving equipment working in the vicinity and one due to a burst at a temporary joint which was to have been repaired the following day.

Pipeline revenue is estimated at R24.6 million, i.e. R7.4 million more than in 1966-’67.

Air Services

The demand for air transport continues to grow and the indications are that the passenger total for the year will exceed the one-million mark for the first time in S.A.A.’s history. Compared with the same period of the previous year, passenger traffic during the first nine months of the current financial year advanced by 18.8 per cent on the Springbok services, 36.2 per cent on the Australian, 6.1 per cent on the regional and 12.5 per cent on internal standard class services. Owing to the popularity of the Boeing 727 aircraft the patronage of the Skycoach services, using Viscounts, was disappointing and barely exceeded the previous year’s passenger totals.

During the same period cargo ton-miles increased by 11 per cent on the internal services, but on the overseas services there was a decrease. In order to secure S.A.A.’s legitimate share of the available traffic, a freight service to Paris was introduced recently in partnership with U.T.A. and this is being well patronized. Total Airways revenue is now estimated at R55.7 million, i.e. R7.2 million more than the previous year’s figure.

Revenue: All Services (1967-’68)

Revenue from all services is now expected to reach a total amount of R753,834,000, or R76.1 million more than in 1966-’67.

Expenditure: All Services (1967-’68)

In accordance with the Additional Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from revenue funds, dealt with by the House last month, the revised estimate of expenditure for the current year is R718,665,800.

The year is, therefore, expected to close with a surplus of R35.2 million.

I propose to utilize R3 million of this surplus to meet part of the cost of the housing programme, and to credit the Rates Equalization Fund with the balance.

STAFF

As mentioned in my introductory remarks, the staff position in certain grades deteriorated during the current year. The average shortage in certain important operating grades is now in excess of 13 per cent and, in the case of artisans, almost 20 per cent. In certain individual grades the actual shortage is considerably higher.

In the ranks of the professional staff the position is equally difficult. The intake of engineers nowadays consists almost entirely of graduates who study with the aid of Railway scholarships. In this connection I may mention that 808 scholarships have been awarded since the inception of the scheme. Up to the present 319 students have completed their studies but only 174 of these are still in the Service, the remainder having resigned. There is also a high wastage rate in the case of the B. Com. scholarship scheme and the training scheme for engineering assistants.

The losses in the ranks of these beneficiaries are disappointing, hut the continuation of the schemes is, nevertheless, considered to be in the national interest even though the Administration does not reap the full benefit immediately.

Notwithstanding the fact that the total white staff, who are primarily responsible for the movement of traffic, decreased by nearly 1,000 units during the current year, it was possible to handle the total traffic volume which increased by some 4 per cent on a ton-mile basis during the same period. This clearly proves that the Administration, with the loyal support of the staff, once again succeeded in achieving a higher level of productivity.

Hon. members are aware that I received strong representations last year from all staff groups for wage improvements. Because of the Government’s campaign to combat inflation I was unfortunately not able to meet their request at that time. Present economic indications are, however, that the war against inflation is being won. In these circumstances, and bearing in mind the loyal co-operation of the staff and my undertaking to consider their wage claims at an opportune time, I have decided to make certain salary and wage concessions to the staff, both White and non-White. The wage concessions, which also involve an adjustment in overtime and Sunday time rates, will become effective from the April, 1968, paymonth. The total cost approximates R43 million per annum. The staff associations will be notified of the details of the adjustments in due course.

Hon. members will be glad to hear that Railway pension beneficiaries have not been forgotten. In response to representations it has been decided to abolish, with effect from 1st October, 1968, the means test at present applied in determining the temporary allowance payable to them. This means that from that date the allowance will be paid at the rate of R35 per month for married and R15 per month for unmarried pensioners, irrespective of income from any other source. The estimated cost of this concession is R800.000 per annum.

My colleague, the Minister of Finance, will deal with the representations of Public and Provincial Servants for improved working conditions as well as matters relating to civil pensioners, in his Budget speech.

PROSPECTS FOR 1968-’69

If the brakes on the rate of expansion in the national economy continue to be effective, their restraining influence may well be reflected in the slower growth of rail earnings in the coming months.

With regard to the prospects for high-rated traffic from specific sectors of the economy, reports from Commerce predict a slight slowdown in the rate of increase in sales by both retailers and wholesalers. It would appear also, from a survey conducted by the Stellenbosch Bureau for Economic Research, that both the wholesale and retail trade intend to reduce stocks on a substantial scale during 1968. Obviously, where replenishment is retarded there will be an adverse effect on railings.

Having regard to the limited availability of credit and the effects of other disinflationary measures, it is also generally accepted that, despite recent relaxations of import control, the level of imports is unlikely to be much higher than that of 1967. The view of the Association of Chambers of Commerce in this regard is that, due to the ever-increasing proportion of consumer requirements supplied by South African Industry, imports of consumer goods—always an important factor in railway earnings—now represent only a small proportion of total imports.

The Administration’s revenues will also be affected by the anticipated reduction in the volume of crude oil imports during the year to come.

Regarding exports of fruit, wine and other high-rated agricultural products, it is not considered that their volume, and consequently rail and harbour earnings, will decline significantly as a result of the sharper competition following devaluation in Britain and certain other territories, although the position is not free from doubt.

On the whole, therefore, it would appear that as far as the high-rated categories of traffic are concerned, the rate of growth is likely to diminish during the year 1968-’69.

As regards the low-rated commodities, it is estimated that over two million tons of the 1967 crop of maize will be available for export during 1968, and dependent on favourable weather conditions, a total of 3.35 million tons of maize exports is expected to be transported in 1968-’69.

Exports of manganese and chrome ore, which are already lower than in 1966, may be influenced by economic conditions in the principal overseas markets, viz., the United States, United Kingdom and West Germany, whilst producers of manganese ore are faced with competition from West Africa. In the case of iron ore, Australia is also competing on the Japanese market and the prospects for South African exports there are not very favourable.

An increase in the production of fertilizers is expected during 1968-’69, but advice has been received that production at coastal plants will not vary substantially from the 1967 level. The additional output will be largely from inland factories closer to the farming areas, with proportionately less benefit to the Railways.

In comparison, therefore, with the rise of 4.87 per cent in 1967-’68 in total freight tonnage, including coal and livestock, provision is made for an increase of only 2.07 per cent in 1968-’69. Revenue from goods, coal and livestock is estimated at R454.5 million or 1.99 per cent higher than in 1967-’68, compared with the increase of 9.98 per cent in the preceding year.

Passengers

The introduction of a train service to the Umlazi resettlement area is expected to provide a considerable increase in the number of suburban passenger journeys during the coming year. Taking into account the steady annual increase in third-class suburban traffic, passenger revenue for 1968-’69 is estimated at R73,280,000, or almost 6 per cent more than in 1967-’68.

Harbours

On the assumption that imports will not increase materially but that the diversion of ships from Suez will continue throughout the year, provision is made in the estimates for a rise of R1.3 million (i.e. approximately 3.1 per cent) in harbour revenue.

Pipeline

During the coming year it is not anticipated that the same volume of crude oil and naphtha will be transported by pipeline as in 1967-’68, and after allowing for a normal annual increase in the case of other petroleum products, total pipeline revenue is estimated at R21 million, which is well below the figure for 1967-’68.

Airways

S.A. Airways expect an additional R7.2 million in earnings in 1968-’69, i.e. the same increase as in 1967-’68. Airline revenue for the coming year is thus estimated at R62,968,000.

All Services

Revenue from all services during the year 1968-’69 is expected to total R774,865,000.

Expenditure

The Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue during 1968-’69, tabled two days ago, do not provide for the salary and wage concessions and reflect a total expenditure of R762,380,000, so that the year would close with an estimated surplus of approximately R12.5 million.

Taking into account the cost of the salary and wage improvements to be met from revenue funds and concessions to pension beneficiaries for which Supplementary Estimates are being tabled, it is anticipated that the results of working will show a deficit of some R24 million. I wish to assure the House that whatever the amount of the deficit, this shortfall will not be recouped by way of tariff adjustments but will be financed in toto from the Rates Equalization Fund.

Before I close I have an item which will not affect the results of working for the ensuing financial year but which may be of particular interest to the Hon. Members from South West Africa: It has been decided to abolish, with effect from 1st April, 1969, the split rates at present applicable to traffic conveyed between the Republic and South West Africa. The resultant loss will require to be borne by the Railways.

APPRECIATION

The Railway Commissioners, the General Manager and every member of the staff, under difficult conditions, once again succeeded in successfully meeting the high demands with which they were faced. I wish to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to them all for their loyal support and devoted services rendered under pressure of disinflationary measures and acute staff shortages.

TABLING

I now lay upon the Table—

1. (1) Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works of the South African Railways and Harbours for the year ending 31st March, 1969 [R.P.6—'68];
2. (2) Supplementary Estimates of the Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds during the year ending 31st March, 1969 [R.P. 31—’68];
3. (3) Memorandum setting out the estimated results of working of the South African Railways and Harbours for the financial year 1967-’68 and anticipated revenue and expenditure for the year 1968-’69, together with the latest traffic and other statistics [W.P. A—’68]; and
4. (4) Statements of the Estimated Revenue and Expenditure of the South African Railways and Harbours for the year ending 31st March, 1969, and Statements of the Original and Revised Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 31st March, 1968 [R.P. 7—’68].

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that we on this side of the House welcome particularly the announcement by the hon. the Minister that the staff of the South African Railways and Harbours will receive some relief from the economic pressures under which they have suffered during the past year. We do not want to minimize our gratification at the news the Minister has given us on that score.

But there are certain points about that which need further clarification. I was surprised by the vagueness of the Minister’s statement. I want to express the hope at once that these benefits will be in the form of direct salary and wage increases. Will they be?

They will be.

Because fringe benefits alone cannot meet the requirements of the workers. I think the House should note the very serious consequences of the long delay on the part of the hon. the Minister to make these adjustments. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh, but when one reads that the establishment of artisans of the S.A. Railways is 20 per cent below strength, anybody who has the interests of the S.A. Railways at heart will be perturbed and disturbed. It is definitely not a matter for laughter at all, and I am sure the hon. the Minister does not laugh at it.

Furthermore, I think the public outside will now be curious to know whether this means, as the Minister actually hinted in two or three places during his speech, that it is the considered opinion of the Government that inflation has been beaten. We must now expect that when the hon. the Minister of Finance comes with his budget there will be adjustments in the wages and salaries also of public servants. This action by the Government, in the first place announced by the hon. Minister of Transport, will have repercussions throughout our economy. The private sector is now going to face irresistible demands for similar increases. What is regrettable is that in this Budget there is no sign on the part of the hon. the Minister that he is undoing an injustice to the railway user committed last year —the increase of rates at a time when he should not have done it, when inflation and the cost structure made it most undesirable. For that there is to be no redress. It will be a further tragedy if next week there is to be no redress for the private sector of our economy either in accordance with the expectation being created by the Government that inflation has been beaten.

However, the Minister made a most interesting speech. I am particularly interested in his estimates for the coming year. He seems to have been extremely conservative throughout, giving the impression that he expects this inflation to continue during the coming year and that, as a result, there is to be no relaxation of the curbs placed on the economy of South Africa in order to discourage excessive growth. As I have said, the Minister made a most interesting speech, but I think the House will agree that all of us are entitled to time to consider it further. Accordingly I move—

Agreed to.

When this debate was adjourned yesterday afternoon I said that I was hoping that during the two days the Bill had been debated both sides of the House would find some common ground for agreement so that we might go forward together and prepare a Bill or devise a method for the economic development and not only for the rehabilitation of the reserves. Well. I am disappointed that we did not get as far as that. I am not very much concerned about the question whether there is economic integration, or any of the other fancy names hon. members used. I have regarded this Bill throughout as an economic measure, and. consequently, it would have been more appropriate if it had been handled either by the Minister of Economic Affairs or the Minister of Finance. Both sides of the House are agreed on one thing— all of us are anxious to develop the reserves economically not only in their own interests but also in the interests of the country as a whole. While I listened to the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister—and may I thank him for making available to us copies of that speech in advance—I got the impression, especially from paragraphs 3 and 4, that he himself was disappointed with the progress they had made in this field over the past eight years.

No.

Well, that is the impression one gets when one reads his speech. He said he had decided last year to introduce a measure to improve what had already been done for the development of the reserves. Well, I do not blame him. I have here two reports to which reference has been made during the course of this debate, i.e. the report of the Bantu Investment Corporation and of the Xhosa Development Corporation. These reports are for the year ending at the end of March, 1966. Are these the most recent reports?

I think so, although I am not quite sure.

In any event, it is the most recent I could find. And if it is so then that in itself condemns what has been done— because here we have two reports two years old without there being an interim report in the meantime. How can we judge what progress is being made if we do not have a proper audited and up to date report before us. Goodness knows, as it is we receive little enough information in these reports. So, I can understand that if this is all the Minister can show he himself must feel disappointed.

Let us look at the activities of the Xhosa Development Corporation. This corporation was given R1 million as capital. All shares were paid up—so that they had R1 million to play with. But looking through its balance sheet one wonders what they have done with the money. We see from the report that the corporation had a few heavy investments and a profit. These are the investments: With the Public Debt Commissioners R493.000; with Saambou Building Society R150.000: and with the Nasionale Building Society R350,000. I admit that in the short period they did not have time to have the money invested in development. But they have shown a profit. But the profit they have shown is the interest drawn on the money given to it for the purpose of developing the reserves.

Are these not all Bantu-owned concerns?

Is the Saambou Building Society a Bantu-owned concern?

No.

I do not know the Nasionale Building Society. Is that from the same stable? I think their sources of revenue are really established if that is the case.

Sir, in the first half of the hon. the Minister’s speech he dealt with the clauses of the Bill. In the second half he eulogized what had been done in the reserves already—nothing to do with the Bill. I feel that we require something very much more than that. I see the plan and I want to say to the Minister that I think that, being disappointed in the progress that has been made, he has gone to the example of the Industrial Development Corporation in order to give himself the control of a corporation similar to the I.D.C.; he will now have this overall corporation. I want to say that if he is going to persist in this we shall have to ask for certain assurances in this debate. Throughout the debate we proposed that this Bill should go to a select committee so that we could get expert evidence from people who have already expressed themselves about the development of the reserves. Our view is a very simple one; we said, “Go back to the report of the Tomlinson Commission”. That is our proposal, but the hon. the Minister will not have the Tomlinson Commission report. He simply says that they are going to make money available through a reserve fund.

Sir, now we come to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am sorry he is not here. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has given us the key to the disappointment. He says it is really impossible to develop the reserves because the Bantu themselves in the reserves have not been developed sufficiently as individuals to be able to take part in this development. He says it is a human problem; it is not only a problem of providing the secondary development, that is to say, industrial development and so on; it is primarily one of developing the Bantu themselves, especially in education.

Do you not agree with that?

Of course, I do. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that sufficient has not been done in education—we realize that—and then they suggest that we are to blame. They asked what we did when we were in power. Well, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that when I think of the 1948 election. I recall that we had members from the other side, who were then in Opposition, stumping the country and saying that the United Party Government were prepared to spend £4 million (R8 million) per annum on the Bantu for education. They said that the man who had initiated it, Mr. Hofmeyr, one of the two great Ministers of Finance this country has known, was a “kafferboetie” because he had done that. Sir, we did our best.

The hon. the Deputy Minister then went further and said that in order to measure the progress that had been made in the development of the reserves, it was not fair to compare them with the white areas. I quite agree with that. No one has ever made that comparison. What we have said is that they have hardly been developed at all. But the Deputy Minister said that we should make a comparison with other countries in Africa. Sir, the other countries in Africa are not part of South Africa. These are our own people in our own country, and they have been in our own country for hundreds of years. The comparison is not valid at all. What was his next comparison? The next comparison he made was this: He said that you could not expect to get entrepreneurs amongst the Bantu. We quite agree. That is why we suggested that you should go back to the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission and allow white entrepreneurs to go in. The hon. the Deputy Minister went on to say that we must first develop the human material, and then having done that, we shall have something to work on; we shall have engineers and professional men. Well, if we have not got engineers and professional men, who are to blame for that? When the system of Bantu education was introduced for the first time in this country, there was a flourishing university college which was on the point of becoming a university, at Fort Hare. In the report of the Tomlinson Commission they refer to the possibility of Fort Hare developing in that way. The next point he mentioned was this: He said, “Why should we be afraid of competition; why should we be afraid that the lower wage scale in the reserves will compete with the wage scales in our white areas?” He said that Japan had not competed in that way. But the story here is different; he is not going to impose tariffs against the Transkei. Sir, I want to go on to what I regard as the two fundamental principles in this Bill. If you have a development corporation like this one that is proposed here, or the two that we already have, what is the fundamental problem? The fundamental problem is this: How can we have managerial independence combined with public accountability? When I talk about “public accountability” I mean accountability to this House that votes the money, not to the hon. the Minister alone. Various members have expressed their views about this question of accountability. We have discussed this question in the House for a very long time. It was raised in this House in debate in 1951; that was in the days of Mr. Havenga. Sir, I have quoted this on another occasion; I should like to quote it again. When we asked the Minister of Economic Affairs to give us information about the Industrial Development Corporation and the other national public corporations like Iscor, Sasol, etc., this is what Mr. Havenga had to say in his reply to the debate—

An hon. member: And you have to find the money.

The Minister of Finance: I know that as a result of greater burdens which the State has to bear in regard to the financing of these corporations, it is reasonable that Parliament should demand the right to have some control but that control, I submit, should be over broad questions of policy. I know my hon. friend (the Minister of Economic Affairs) was worried by certain developments, and he has promised the House that he is going to take a greater interest in the running of these undertakings.

You see, Sir, it was a problem as long ago as that, and if that was true of these great national undertakings, how much more true is it of these Bantu Corporations? I think it is essential that there should be a measure of parliamentary control.

Are you not satisfied with clause 24 of the Bill?

Sir, I was interested in what the hon. member for Heilbron had to say. He said that I personally had urged in this House a closer association between the Department of Economic Affairs and these corporations. My objection is that the association is much too close. The hon. member has misunderstood what I have had to say over the years. What I am asking for is that it should not be the Minister of Economic Affairs who receives the report, but that we should have it, similar to the report, referred to by the hon. member for Transkei, by the Auditor-General. I think it is essential. When we have raised the matter, when we have asked questions about the development, and even when we asked about a particular company, when the I.D.C. had difficulty over that company and had certain sums at stake, we were told that the Minister was not responsible, that he was only responsible for nominating the directors but he was not responsible for what they did.

That is why I ask whether you are not satisfied with clause 24 of this Bill.

I am coming to that. Clause 24 does not meet us at all. Let us look at clause 24. What have you to do under clause 24? The hon. member for Wolmaransstad asked why we wanted this investigation, because we could raise this under the Minister’s Vote. But we cannot raise it under the Minister’s Vote in terms of the Bill. The Minister is not responsible; his directors are responsible. They are not responsible to him; they are not servants of his Department.

Who appoints them?

The Minister, on behalf of the Trust. [Interjections.] The Trust still may require these things, not Parliament. Parliament votes the money. In this case it is the Auditor-General who tells Parliament, much to the embarrassment of hon. members opposite. [Interjections.] That is the story we have just heard from the hon. member for Heilbron, and there were other hon. members who spoke in a similar vein. I am sorry the hon. member for Florida is not here. He seemed to think that the hon. member for Pinetown had cast reflections on the directors.

Of course he did.

I am very glad the hon. member for Brakpan is here and that he has taken up the cudgels on behalf of the hon. member for Florida. What the hon. member for Pinetown did was this: He contrasted the measure of control under the Companies Law with the measure of control which is required here. He pointed out that if under the Companies Law reports of this kind were to be presented the directors would find themselves in trouble. Naturally, and we know that, because this is a different kind of control. The hon. member for Florida seemed to think that we on this side intended to have tight control, but we do not wish to have that. But we are not satisfied with the manner in which it is developing at present, and I want to read to the House the opinion of a brilliant economist at one of our universities who has done a good deal of research into what is happening with these public corporations. He ends up his dissertation by saying this. He is Mr. Roux of the University of South Africa, and he says—

I have quoted that because it expresses my view. It is not a question of what is being done by these directors. The point is the question of accountability. Let us take the misunderstanding of the hon. member for Pietersburg, who says surely the system proposed here is similar to what you have in a city council. It is not. The accounts of a city council are audited and they come before the council. If you attend a meeting of the Johannesburg City Council, you will soon hear what they have to say about the accounts, especially the Opposition there. But then the most colossal blunder of all was made by the hon. member for Pietersburg when he said: Look at the S.A. Railways; that is a similar undertaking. Well, well. This afternoon we heard a statement in regard to the S.A. Railways by the hon. the Minister of Transport, who is now submitting himself to the criticism and investigation of this House for a week. That is perfect accountability, and that is the essential difference. The hon. member says we have one policy in this country and another one overseas, and he says when we go overseas we boast of the achievements of the Nationalist Government. That is not so; we think of them as a prodigal son, and when we go overseas we try to keep our differences in the family. We do not tell the worst to the people outside; we put the best possible face on it. I have found myself in the embarrassing position overseas of trying to defend the Bantu education system in this country. [Interjections.]

I am very glad the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is here, because the case he put was this. When this Bill eventually goes to Committee we shall not need any further report back to Parliament; we shall be able to consider every clause in detail. I concede the point, but we do not have all the wisdom in our Select Committee. We do not know what is going to happen to all these companies afterwards. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad thinks that every year we can get up in this House under the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and debate the details of this, but we cannot. The people with whom that should be discussed are the directors of the company, as we have in the case of the Select Committee on Railways.

Now I come to another point, which I regard as one of the two principal points. The second one is in regard to the constitution of the Board. There is provision in clauses 9, 10 and 14 for a Board of Directors who will be nominated by the Minister, and an Advisory Board. The hon. member for Heilbron spoke about the system that Mr. Anton Rupert was following. I do not think it is a fair comparison. When Mr. Rupert explains his system, he has investments in other countries, whereas we are discussing an investment in this country. This is what Mr. Rupert said—

Then he described how his companies are conducted and said—

That is not what we are asking for.

I did not say that was what you were asking for. I said that had been suggested.

Well, I am very glad that is the explanation. But we can think on those lines. We are going to train the Bantu to develop their own reserves and to obtain their own directors, eventually.

The magic word here is “uiteindelik”— eventually. Eventually that will happen. How will they learn? How does a man learn to fly? He does not learn to fly by studying Newton’s laws of motion and the theory of flight. He learns through being in the aircraft with the man who is training him. That is the obvious thing to do. Now it comes to this, that we have to choose between two systems. The hon. member for Heilbron, whom I regarded as that side’s chief speaker because he followed on after the opening speech, said the system which is advocated in this measure has been operating in the university colleges quite successfully. I cannot see how it can ever operate successfully; I do not think it can. When we discussed this in the select committee, which became a commission, on separate university facilities, all the best advice in the country which we could get, and I think especially of Pretoria University, Potchefstroom and Stellenbosch, was obtained, and they gave us the following advice. They said we must have non-Whites on the same board with us, on the same council. They asked how they could ever learn if they were not on the same council?

What about clause 10 dealing with advisory boards?

They said they should be on the same council. Otherwise, how are they going to make contact? How are they going to learn otherwise? The aim is eventually to hand over to these people. I would not suggest handing over now, but what I think the hon. the Minister should consider is the following. Instead of having this advisory council, this board of advisory directors, why not include one or two Bantu on the suggestion, for example, of the government in the Transkei? Take this Transkei report. Why not have one or two of them on that Board? They can be suggested by that government and considered by the hon. the Minister, who can also accept them, if they are satisfactory. Surely that is the best way; that is the correct approach. Otherwise, how are they going to learn? How are they going to learn in a university college to control the affairs of the senate? I am speaking not so much of the university council as of the senate. It is an advisory senate in a university college. A senior man may be in an advisory capacity in an advisory senate. This is quite wrong but the argument is, they cannot sit together. But why can they not sit together? They are not developing in our area; they are developing in their own areas. Surely some concessions can be made in that respect?

Read clause 10 (1).

We will do all that in committee, when, I think, we shall have an excellent opportunity.

I want to take one final point. I would suggest to the Minister that instead of persisting with this Bill, if he does not agree with the appointment of a select committee, he should go to the Government and say the I.D.C. has now performed the first part of the task for which it was created. It was first of all created in order to assist developing industries, and secondly to assist Government undertakings. Those two aims were laid down by the United Party government in 1940. Those were the two reasons for the establishment of the I.D.C. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the debate, which has now lasted slightly more than two sitting days. With your leave, I shall first discuss the matter in general, and then reply to specific points raised by hon. members.

There was a very widespread reaction to the Bill which is now receiving our attention. Firstly, I want to refer to contributions from hon. members on my own side of the House, and I want to say, and you will probably agree with me, that hon. members on this side have made my task much easier in that they have in many respects replied to arguments, assertions and counterfeit arguments from the other side of the House. They have in this way made my task much easier in that I, therefore, do not have to go into every assertion made by hon. members of the Opposition.

When the debate began, I made up my mind to listen very attentively—and I am saying this to hon. members on my own side—to what each one of them said, and not to use their speaking turns as my rest periods. I wanted to see to what extent they were making my task easier. I made notes, which I can read out here, of how each hon. member on my side dealt with certain aspects raised by hon. members on the opposite side. Consequently it is unnecessary for me to reply to those points.

I can assure you that it is very necessary that you reply to them.

I see that the first speaker on the Opposition side is already uneasy now that he hears me thanking hon. members on this side for their positive contribution, because he knows what his own contribution was like. He is also very well aware of what the contribution of his colleagues on the opposite side was like. I now come to what they have said, since the hon. member is eager to hear what I have to say about them.

I want to make quite a few general observations about the way in which the debate was conducted by the opposite side. The first observation is that very little was said about the new aspects being proposed by this measure. Hon. members of the Opposition had nothing at all to say about the intrinsic nature of the new aspects of this Bill. The only exception was the hon. member for Kensington, who has said a few things about those aspects a moment ago. We must remember that this measure is really a consolidation of, plus an addition to, two Acts which have been in existence for years. It was therefore very necessary to go into the new aspects of this Bill. But that was not what the hon. members of the Opposition concerned themselves with. I am not talking about the real innovations in this measure. The real innovations in this measure are the following. Actually there are only two general assertions I want to make. Firstly, the corporations are being brought closer to the trusteeship concept of our Bantu administration, and secondly, it will now be possible to proceed in a much more flexible way with the existing corporations and with other corporations which may be established. But they did not go into those aspects at all.

They are the same as under the old policy.

May I remind you, Sir, that that hon. member had unlimited time in which to speak, but he sat down before an hour had elapsed. Now he must keep quiet so that I can speak.

“Orders is orders.”

It seems to me the hon. member who made that interjection is only now getting his thoughts in order, instead of doing it yesterday when he spoke. Throughout this debate we heard like a constant refrain— also a moment ago when the hon. member for Kensington was speaking—how that side were so sanctimoniously expecting something big to be introduced here. Their expression was that there could be “common ground” here, an expression which echoed like a refrain. It was decided in their caucus that this was one of the points on which they should hammer, i.e. this “common ground” idea. If there is such a terribly great need for “common ground”, and if there is such a great desire on that side to co-operate on a common basis—something which I doubt very much in any case—then I ask: Why were there no constructive suggestions forthcoming from their side? They could have suggested a common basis, which they could have made tempting to us and difficult for us to say no to. But we heard nothing of that nature. They did not mention one such point. They did not come forward with a single point which could have been regarded as a common basis of action. All that was forthcoming from that side was pious idle talk. It was all negative.

Another general observation I want to make is that hon. members on the opposite side pretended that this Bill was introducing something brand new (“vonkelnuut”).

First you said it contained nothing new; now you are saying that it is something new.

No. I said hon. members on the opposite side pretended that it was brand new. That is precisely what I also said a moment ago. “Vonkelnuut” means brand new, in case the hon. member does not know. Hon. members on the opposite side pretended that there had never been anything in the nature of corporations in the past years and that they themselves had been unable to see how those corporations conducted themselves. They pretended that the corporations were being introduced for the first time now. That is the attitude that was adopted by hon. members on the opposite side. One could have used the existing Acts as a criterion for determining how the corporations had worked in practice and in what respect the existing Acts contained deficiencies. Nowhere did they show us where the existing Acts fell short in terms of proven practice. I am not talking now about the theoretical ideas which the Opposition now have in regard to the Acts and which correspond with those they had as long ago as 1959, when the first Act was introduced.

A third general observation I want to make is that, in the main, hon. members on the opposite side discussed one matter which is not specifically being introduced in this bill by so much as one single word. It is also ironic that certain hon. members—such as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who, as far as I can see, did not even read the Bill— said in addition that the one matter they were discussing, and which I say was not specifically included in this Bill, was badly phrased in this Bill. This is the so-called agency basis on contractorship in terms of which Whites may operate in the Bantu areas if we approve it. I challenge hon. members on the opposite side to show me where provision is now for the first time being made in this Bill for the agency principle in the Bantu homelands.

We were replying to arguments.

No, and I repeat, no; the hon. member was in part replying to arguments, and in addition he—and not only he, because he is in good bad company— said, when he was discussing the agency principle, that the Bill was making provision for it in an inadequate way. That is what the hon member said, and nowhere in the Bill is provision being made for that. He did not even find it between the lines, because it is not even to be found there. I did in fact deal with the question of agencies because I gave a very comprehensive introduction to the Bill. I also furnished an explanation of the procedures according to which we were setting about our task. But the point is that I did not state that provision was being made in the Bill for agencies. This is an inherent capacity that each corporation has. If hon. members had put it in that way, it would have been a different matter. However, I take it amiss of them that they did not even read the Bill carefully enough to have seen that provision was not being made for that.

It is a poor argument you are now using.

No, it is not a poor argument. It points to a poor scrutiny of the Bill on the part of the Opposition. [Interjections.] I want to make a further general observation, i.e. in regard to the statement made by various members on the opposite side that development in the homelands is too slow and that there is an urgent need for industrial development. That is allegedly the important thing A great deal can be said about this matter, but I want to refer to it very briefly.

Firstly I merely want to say this. If industrial development is really all that necessary and was just as necessary in the past as well, why was there not a great influx of interested industrialists to those Bantu areas when the Opposition was in power? In our time there has been no great influx either, because we have not been overwhelmed by people who want to go to the homelands for the purpose of establishing industries, to such an extent that we have had to chase them away in great numbers. That has not been the case at all. We are not even being overwhelmed by people who want to go to the border industry areas. There is not even a great influx in that regard.

We know that.

Yes, I know that hon. members on the opposite side know that. I also know that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) goes into ecstasies on that score. I know that he is grateful for that. But the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has shaken his head so much on that account that I can hear it here where I am standing.

That is an old hackneyed story of yours.

Who is the hackney horse? Surely that hon. member is not a hackney horse. [Interjections.] Hon. members may as well get done with shouting now. I want to tell the hon. member for North Rand that I admit that that is an old, hackneyed argument, i.e. that somebody is shaking his head so much that you can hear it. I will not use it again, but I still remember how that image was used here for the first time in respect of that hon. member.

If you are going to confine yourself to attacking people here, you are going to have very little time in which to say anything.

I say that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is pleased about the statement I made that we were not even being overwhelmed by people wanting to go to the border industry areas. However, I want to tell that hon. member that the figures indicate that the interest in that regard has been increasing steadily over the past few years. The interest will become even greater in years to come. We are not discussing border industries now, because they are not the subject under discussion here.

What border areas do they want to stream into?

That hon. member cannot be so stupid that he cannot understand that I may not now discuss border industries here. [Interjections.] That hon. member is the last person I would be afraid to discuss border industries with, but it does not even fall under my Vote. But I nevertheless want to tell him that if there has not even been a great influx in that regard, particularly not in the beginning, how could there possibly be an influx into the homelands? That is the point. I know the hon. member cannot understand it. I do not blame him for it, because it is not his fault. But hon. members on the opposite side must remember, and I have said this here repeatedly, that development in the Bantu homelands is by no means a simple matter of industrial economic development. Hon. members on this side of the House stated this very clearly. I stated it emphatically here in September or October, 1966, when my Vote was being discussed. Last year I had a policy motion, lasting an entire week, in the Senate in regard to this important subject, i.e. the internal development of the Bantu homelands. It has been stated time and again, and I am not going to repeat it on this occasion I have furnished hon. members with the references for this. I notice that the hon. member for Pinelands is hanging on my words. He will probably go and look it up.

I stated very emphatically what economic development is and how the different facets of economic development in a homeland, as in any area, follow one another. Agriculture develops first, and the people develop with it. The development of the Bantu in that area is actually of more importance than agriculture, because of what avail is the development of agriculture if the people are not developed? It is the people who have to develop agriculture as well. With that is associated all the other facets of economic development, such as trade, which, strangely enough, preceeded industrial development in the Bantu areas. In most communities trade is a little ahead of industrial development, because in agriculture man is always haggling and buying and bartering. He must buy in order to subsist. I dealt fully with the infra-structure and every thing associated with that. The hon. members have a very unbalanced view of economy if they think that only one thing is required in the Bantu areas, i.e. a chimney on every antheap or a factory on every morgen of land one finds there. That is not the solution in regard to the Bantu areas. Of what avail will it be to crowd the Bantu areas with smoking factories if the people there do not lend themselves to economic development and if they cannot absorb things into their system and cannot cope with the concomitant development? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I think it is my turn to speak now. The hon members on the opposite side must display this much goodwill to me. I am not threatening them in any way, but I want to warn them that I have an unlimited time for this speech. I have in my time spoken for hours on end and I feel quite capable of doing so again. I want to warn them in advance that they will not get me back into my seat any sooner through jeering, shouting and unfair treatment. In fact, they will provoke me into remaining on my feet until the House automatically adjourns. Hon. members must give me a chance to try and reply in a courteous manner. Surely that is not asking too much of my colleagues on the opposite side?

But may I say something? [Laughter.]

Very well, the hon. member may ask me a question, but according to the rules he is not allowed to say something.

I want to ask the hon. Minister whether they have not accepted a policy in regard to which they cannot wait as long as he now wants to wait?

I am grateful for that question It is an intelligent question which one may expect from that good friend of mine. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not display their envy of that hon. member in this way!

Mr. Speaker, the policy we have accepted, the general policy in regard to the internal development—not the other facets of it, but those which are under discussion now—of the Bantu areas is that there should be a comprehensive development, but at such a rate that the development of the people will be able to keep pace with it and they will be able to absorb everything which is being introduced in terms of all the facets of development there. That is our policy, and it is the correct one.

But I was talking about the overall policy.

It seems to me that that hon. member and I will have to argue this matter out some other time. I do, however, want to say that I also heard comforting things from the side of the Opposition. I must admit it. In certain respects I was really highly pleased inter alia, to hear how standpoints which we have adopted both within and outside this House, are now gaining acceptance amongst the Opposition. Yes, I heard many examples of that. To tell the truth, I am really sorry I did not make a separate list of these things. Sir, may I just remind you of one where the hon. member for Bezuidenhout put both his feet into it?

He wants to turn Nationalist again. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for South Coast also referred to it. He shied away, not only from integration, but also from economic integration as a policy of theirs. In my notes I have written down between quotation marks how the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that in terms of the United Party’s view one should really talk about “economic co-operation”, not so much of “economic integration”. They are running away from the word, and I hope they will run away from the image, the idea, of economic integration.

That you are creating.

No. We have dealt with that matter repeatedly here. If it is necessary, I shall do so on this occasion as well, but we must first see whether we have sufficient time left for that. Mr. Speaker, these are the encouraging aspects which I also came across in this debate.

Sir, as hon. members on the opposite side mentioned, I gave them duplicated copies of my speech. They had the whole of the weekend, from Thursday to Monday, in which to study it. I am highly pleased and grateful that these are the good fruits of the full text of my speech having been made available to them. I am going to do so again in future, because it has had good results. In scrutinizing that speech over this long period of time they could find nothing with which they could attack our policy in a constructive way. I also want to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members on the opposite side for displaying far less rancour in regard to this subject than was the case three years and nine years ago. In 1959 we heard far more rancour and gall, if one can hear gall, from hon. members of the Opposition in regard to this very subject, the Bantu Investment Corporation. It is very comforting that this was not the case now, and for that I am also grateful to the Opposition.

Sir, I now want to deal with another general point, and after that I shall return to hon. members individually. I want to put it to you that the ignorance and the intimidation displayed in the arguments from the side of the Opposition in order to try and justify their case, as they see it, was a great disappointment to me. There is only one aspect of the intimidation they used that I want to deal with, i.e. the fact that they stated repeatedly: There will be very unfair competition for Whites in the white area from the industrial and other economic undertakings which this legislation will make possible in the Bantu homelands. There will be unfavourable, bad and dangerous competition with the Whites, they say. In addition they asked repeatedly what protection there would be against such competition. Let me state the following point very emphatically here. We cannot overemphasize the importance of competition by means of which the Whites can maintain themselves and have always maintained themselves in this country against non-White nations. The Whites are in South Africa because they were able to maintain themselves in competition with others, and not only competition in the economic sphere, but in many other spheres as well. We must never be afraid of competition. I agree wholeheartedly with what the Deputy Minister said about that, but I want to emphasize the fact that, if we are able to maintain ourselves in competition, we have marrow in our bones as Whites.

We must make fewer laws.

Ah! One cannot be without laws. Very well then, let me just follow up the hon. member for Bezuidenhout on this very point. He says that we should make fewer laws. There were two laws in regard to this matter; now there will only be one. Is this not a case of having fewer laws?

Are you not afraid of competition?

No. I am not afraid of competition. I shall proceed. I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side, and everyone in this House, that they should not present the matter as if the future of the Whites in South Africa lies exclusively in the entrenchment of all kinds of old practices and in the entrenchment of the colour of our skin and all kinds of institutions.

Work reservation?

Work reservation is a good thing, because it ensures a balance of labour between the various groups of workers. We must ensure, by means of achievements, that we are able to maintain ourselves in such matters as economy and trade in particular. We must ensure, through the quality of our intellect and labour, that we will be able to maintain ourselves. For the purpose of selfmaintenance we can never over-estimate these values. That is why hon. members must not think that we should protect the white areas in all kinds of ways with these entrenchments, because it is not only from the Bantu areas but also from other countries of the world that we shall be inundated by competition. But, Sir, we must remember that we on this side, in our view of matters, do not regard our Bantu homelands in South Africa as foreign Bantu territories, as we regard other African countries. This is also a reply to what the hon. member for Kensington said here a few moments ago. The Bantu nations are not being regarded as foreigners of that kind. In practice, and by means of legislation, we are giving them preference as South African Bantu above Bantu persons from other African states and above other African states as such. They are being given all kinds of privileges. Hon. members ought to know that. If they do not know it, they ought to listen to me.

Then you must not talk about colonialism.

Order! The hon. member for Transkei had an hour in which to speak, and has since then made two hours’ worth of interjections already. I think that is quite enough now.

And, Sir, he did not even use his hour to the full. We are allowing Bantu persons in Bantu areas in South Africa certain privileges in our legislation, administration and in all the practices we are maintaining. May I remind you of the fact that in the Transkeian Constitution it is categorically stated that Transkeian citizens shall not, because they have their own citizenship, be regarded as strangers to and in South Africa. This is categorically stated in that Act, in contrast to what the position is in regard to Bantu persons from other Bantu countries in Southern Africa. This does not only apply in regard to services offered to them on our part. It applies particularly in the case of an important matter such as labour, in so far as that labour for Bantu persons is in fact available in the white areas. May I remind you of the fact that this same kind of arguments was encountered recently, as was the case a few years ago when the registration of the Transkeian voters took place. At that time those people were told that they should not allow themselves to be registered because the Government would then discover them and send them all back to the Transkei so that they might realize that they were Transkeians in the white areas. My reply to that was—and I am repeating it here—that the contrary is true. Those Bantu persons who have themselves registered as Transkeian citizens, are more welcome to work here with us in the white areas than those who refuse to have themselves registered. We must understand the position very clearly, and the members of the Opposition must understand it very clearly. In particular I want the Bantu to hear and understand very clearly that acceptance of membership of a specific Bantu nation by Bantu individuals and the classification of those Bantu individuals in that nation, will result in far greater benefits for them in the white area of South Africa in regard to work and various other matters, than the hope which some Bantu persons may perhaps be nurturing of being integrated with the Whites in one society or, put another way, their refusal to accept their own ethnic membership by attempting to integrate in the white area or to obtain membership of the latter group. I want to make this very clear. Acceptance by Bantu persons of ethnic membership of their own specific nation is worth much more to them in qualifying for employment here with us in so far as work may be available.

Now I should like to deal with arguments and points put forward by individual members. The hon. member for Transkei moved an amendment here to the effect that a select committee be appointed to deal with this Bill. Hon. members on this side of the House have dealt with that amendment very effectively. I do not want to repeat what hon. members on this side of the House have said. I can only say that we have had the practical experience, over a number of years, of both these Acts which have been applied in respect of two existing corporations. And I do not know of a better test to which any Bill before this House can be subjected than this very one. No select committee can do better than this testing of the measure in practice. These two Acts have been tested in practice. The new provisions being added in this Bill are so few that the two existing Acts are not being substantially changed. That is why I say that the appointment of a select committee is the last thing the Opposition should have asked for, even though they did so in regard to previous legislation of this nature. In addition, the hon. member for South Coast, as well as other hon. members, spoke about parliamentary control over the spending and the actions of these corporations allegedly being necessary. This is probably because they want long-drawn-out discussions on this matter here each year. But as I said this afternoon in a remark I made to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and he admitted this—members of the Opposition do not really want parliamentary control over these matters. What they really want is that we should ask them what to do. What members of the Opposition really want is that there should be Opposition approval for these matters.

Talk like a grownup. Why talk nonsense like that? It is childishness. You are a Minister.

Go ahead and explode.

Do you not know that Parliament controls the finances?

Do not get angry.

That hon. member does not get angry for nothing. After all, we know him. As soon as you bring him near to the truth, he gets angry.

I am getting impatient with this childishness.

Let me inform that hon. member, who has already reached the Biblical span of life: Abuse is no argument. I am saying this to him in his old age. The hon. member for Transkei complained that the statements of the corporations will not be laid upon the Table and that what will in fact be laid upon the Table will provide insufficient information. The hon. member objected—as did other members—to the fact that the financial statements and books of the corporations would be audited by chartered accountants only, and not by the Controller and Auditor-General. The hon. member for Pinetown had the same objection. I want to say to the hon. member for Pinetown that the way in which he raised objections to the accounting profession will, in my opinion, be justification for the accounting profession to lodge a complaint against him. By implication he very clearly insulted the accounting profession and he cast aspersions on that profession as being unworthy of auditing the books of the corporations. If the hon. member were to look at the Bill, he would see that in clause 22 (1) (b) it is provided in what way the auditors must report and what they must certify in regard to the books and the financial statements of the corporations. They are granted the right there to bring in unfavourable reports. They may mention that they have come across corruption in their investigations. They may do that if they want to. If the hon. member for Pinetown were to look up the Act relating to the work of the Auditor-General—and apparently he does not know this—he would see that the Auditor-General has the power to appoint accountants from outside his own staff to undertake certain auditing work.

We know that.

The hon. member for Transkei says that he knows that. But if the Controller and Auditor-General should appoint the same accountants as are now appointed by the corporations, they say that it is wrong. The Auditor-General has the power to appoint outside accountants, and he does so particularly as far as statutory bodies are concerned. In that case nothing is said about it. Then the reports brought out by those chartered accountants are fine. But if we state in an Act that they should do so, then it is wrong. What kind of logic or political ethics is it to argue in this way? The hon. member for South Coast, as well as certain other members, at length referred to and quoted from criticism which the Controller and Auditor-General expressed in regard to Bantu affairs in his usual report. They very skilfully tried to drag it into this debate. I am quite prepared to reply to that at the right time. For the purposes of the task we are now performing as regards the consideration of the provisions of this Bill it is not relevant at all and I cannot discuss it, but I shall discuss it at the proper occasion. However, the hon. member for South Coast did something very stupid in his speech yesterday when he said, with reference to the criticism by the Controller and Auditor-General, that I should have asked for a select committee straight away. Does the poor member not know that that criticism of the Controller and Auditor-General does in fact go to the standing Select Committee on Public Accounts? Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of argument one has to deal with here.

The hon. member for South Coast also complained, if I understood him correctly, that officials of the Department could not be entrusted with the work of organizations such as these corporations.

I did not say that at all.

What did the hon. member say then?

Look at my Hansard. Why do you make a statement like that?

The hon. member must not expect me to read through all the members’ Hansards to-day. I am giving the hon. member a fair chance. I want to be fairer to him than he was to me. I am giving him a chance now to say precisely what he meant.

You are doing nothing but being personal in your remarks and I see no reason why I should answer you.

Very well, if the hon. member does not want to avail himself of the opportunity of telling me precisely what he said, then I am not going to deal with this point any further. Let him run away if he wants to.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with another point which the hon. member made. The hon. member, as well as other hon. members, used the word “socialism”. That hon. member referred to the land tenure of the Bantu as a socialistic phenomenon, and other members referred to the Bill as a socialistic one. Sir, I deny once and for all that it is anything of the kind, and I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast this, and he can become angry about this too if he likes: He is somebody who passes in this House for a person who knows the Bantu. Does the hon. member for South Coast not know that the most fundamental, primary and most important economic principle which the Bantu developed amongst themselves was in respect of land tenure, and that was communal. The generally prevailing way in which the Bantu of their own accord regulated land tenure amongst themselves was to hold land communally as a tribal possession. Is that socialistic or communistic, or what is it? It is a most typical, fundamental characteristic of the economic philosophy of the Bantu. The only economy which they developed for themselves was in respect of their land tenure, and that they developed along the lines of a communal system. To call it socialistic is stupid; I repeat that it is stupid.

I think it is wilful.

Nor is there any socialism in this Bill. Is it socialism if we establish a corporation such as this one? What is the distinguishing feature of this corporation system? The distinguishing feature of this corporation system is that it acts in a supplementary way. Throughout the primary requirement and the primary supposition is that it must be possible for the Bantu individually or in companies or partnerships to do these things themselves. And in so far as the Bantu cannot do these things themselves, the corporation must take a hand and help them to do these things. The corporation must take a hand in financing them to do these things, or do them itself in lieu of the Bantu who cannot do so. Is that socialism? It is not socialism at all. Sir, one at least expects hon. members on the opposite side to have a little more sense than to talk in this way when dealing with matters of this kind.

I come now to the hon. member for Pinetown. I have already replied to his main objections. He raised objections in regard to the work of chartered accountants, and he also put a question to which the hon. member for Florida furnished a completely correct reply. He asked where the corporations would be able to sell their goods. It is not necessary to go into that. They can sell their goods anywhere. I also dealt with it a moment ago when I discussed the question of competition. In addition the hon. member asked me whether the labour regulations and the wage measures would also apply in the Bantu areas. The hon. member for Pinetown ought to know what the statutory position is, and if he does not know what it is, then he must go and read the Wage Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act. I did not even look it up again after he had spoken here. I still remember it from debates which we conducted here many years ago. Surely we know that the provisions of those Acts apply throughout the country except where it is possible for exemption to be granted in terms of those Acts themselves. Now the hon. member is refusing to listen to me. It makes no difference; if the decency for that is lacking, then I repeat it in order to have it on record. There are other members who do have the decency to listen. Those Acts make provision for such exemptions as are necessary, and if exemptions are not granted in terms of those Acts and in terms of the industrial agreements, then the provisions are of course applicable in so far as the Bantu areas are covered by those provisions.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton is a person who at least makes a thorough study of any Bill she wants to talk about. I must say this to her credit. I have always admitted it. I admitted it particularly three, four years ago when I was dealing with those very long and difficult Acts here, probably the longest and most difficult which this Department has ever had to deal with, i.e. the Acts of 1963 and 1964. I have always admitted that she makes a thorough study of a Bill, but I regret to say that I cannot say the same of her in this case. Yes, I see the hon. member for Houghton has folded up the Bill as sweetly and carefully as she folds up her clothes at night, but she did not study it. She may perhaps have paged through the Bill and glanced at it here and there, but she did not read it in the way a member who wants to discuss it should read it beforehand. When the hon. member arrived here along with us 15 years ago, all of us, the old members of that time and the new ones who came here then, all saw her sitting against the back wall and thought that the hon. member had the potential to make fine contributions in this House. She seemed quite interesting in those days.

Order! It seems to me the Minister still has his eye on the hon. member. This has nothing to do with the Bill.

The hon. member has developed over the years, and she has become fiercer and fiercer in regard to matters such as these, and in her short speech the other day she made another ferocious attack; I am sorry to have to say it. She said terrible things here. Sir, the comparison between her conduct here in the beginning and her conduct here now, corresponds so well to what Solomon—and she would appreciate it if I quoted the Old Testament—said in Proverbs, namely “The lips of a strange woman drop as a honeycomb but her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword.” The hon. member must not be so sharp if she has not read the Bill thoroughly. The hon. member herself said the Bill envisages a system of white knowhow and white capital in the Bantu homelands. whereas this is nowhere stated in the Bill. That is one proof that she did not read it.

Then your own speech was nonsense.

I did not say that it was stated in the Bill. I referred to it as one of the methods which the contractor or the agent might use in the course of his work. But the hon. member said that it was stated in the Bill. Well, I think I can leave her to Solomon; that is enough.

The hon. member for Pinelands spoke about the lack of work for Bantu in the homelands, and he compared it to the large amount which, according to him, had been spent on border industries and the small number of Bantu— according to him, 50,000—who had been employed by border industries. His figure is incorrect, but for the sake of argument I will accept his figure. It is more than 50,000. The hon. member must bear in mind that any expansion, any provision of employment, whether it be in border industry areas or whether it be in agriculture within the homelands, or whether it be in industries or mining or anything else inside the homelands, provides a means of existence not only to the worker, but also to his dependants. If the hon. member would only take that figure of 50,000 and use it as a basis for making scientific calculations, he would realize that if 50,000 are employed by the homelands, whether inside the homelands or outside in the border industries, then there are, according to departmental calculations, at least two other Bantu employed in ancillary activities. If the exceptionally low figure of 3.4, which has been established scientifically, is taken as the number of other people who benefit thereby, then it means that for every 50,000 employed in industry, half a million subsist on what they provide. In other words, hon. members must not come and tell us that border industries have only provided a livelihood to 50,000 Bantu; they have provided a livelihood to half a million, because if they were not there, they would have been in the white cities and the white towns in the white areas, but now they are concentrated there; they are living in their own areas and they are working there in the border industries. The same thing can happen in the case of other employment within the homelands.

Yes, but then there must be a great many more Bantu, because their numbers are still increasing tremendously in the cities.

Sir, long before figs grow upon thorns that hon. member is going to come and tell us that there are too few Bantu here in South Africa; that is the way in which he argues.

Mr. Speaker, I still want to say something about this other assertion, because nothing has yet been said about it from this side. It relates to the question as to why white capital cannot be allowed into the Bantu homelands now if it is the position that those Bantu homelands will one day themselves, as free independent countries, be able to allow the entry of white capital. In this regard I want to furnish one further reply, which I want to emphasize very strongly, because I should like to have the Bantu know that the Government and I think this way in regard to the matter. The hon. member for Primrose has replied very effectively to this, but I should like to add the following. We who operate in the Bantu areas on the basis and according to the practice of trusteeship, will not as trustee and as guardian exploit or take advantage of the opportunity we have in being there by benefiting people of our own blood there to the detriment of the Bantu, because we would by so doing be sowing dragon’s teeth and creating provocation for the Bantu to take their revenge on us later when they become independent, as we know revenge has been taken on white powers who did that higher up in Africa in the past. We are functioning as a trustee. It is very easy to tell us: You must operate on a partnership basis with the Bantu. That one can do where the parties stand in the relationship of free equals to each other. But we do not stand in the relationship of free equals to the Bantu. We are their trustee; we are their guardian, and if that hon. member is a guardian of a child and he takes advantage of the opportunity to use and exploit the assets of that child to his own benefit or to the benefit of his family or his friends, then he will be an unworthy, an unfair and a dishonest trustee, and neither I nor any of us are going to be such a trustee of the Bantu. This honest treatment of the Bantu is our best investment for good neighbourliness and friendship later on, particularly when it is possible for them to become independent, as the hon. members on the opposite side are always reminding us. It is our investment for the future.

The hon. members for East London (City) and Kensington asked why Bantu persons could not be appointed to the boards of directors of those corporations. The hon. members spoke of an advisory board as opposed to the substantive board, but the hon. members must realize that we do not approve of there being partnership in one form or another, and I said, even in regard to agency, that there will be no mixed ownership of these undertakings, with the concomitant mixed boards of directors. This is not the best way of teaching the Bantu their responsibilities and that is why we do not believe in it and will not have mixed boards of directors of Whites and Bantu intermingled. That is why we are conferring it upon an advisory body which can also acquire executive functions. In terms of the Act the corporation will have the power to transfer functions to the advisory Bantu board which is there to advise the corporation, so that they may do certain things themselves. This is stated in the Act, and of course directors and officials of the corporations will be able to attend the meetings of those advisory boards, consisting solely of Bantu, in order to advise and to assist them in their deliberations, and even with the resolutions they will have to adopt. We are operating on this basis every day. The Whites are with the Bantu in large numbers in order to assist them where they have to deliberate in their authorities and school boards and other bodies. But the responsibility must reside with those Bantu themselves who have to take the decisions. It is of no avail having two or three Bantu directors in a corporation of eight directors where the majority of Whites bear the responsibility for the decisions and the rest merely sit there to be present in the atmosphere of discussions. That is of no avail. Giving people responsibility is the best way of teaching them to do something. I hope the hon. members will remember this reply.

The hon. member for Mooi River objected to taxpayers’ money being spent on the takeover of trading stations in the Transkei Let him raise objections; that is why he is here. We are not raising objections, because we see to it that the right policy is being implemented there, and that is why we are doing what is necessary. But the hon. member must remember that what we now actually have to do in the Transkei, i.e. to pay out millions of rands to Whites in order to take over their properties and have them pass into Bantu hands eventually, is the penalty the people of South Africa are having to pay for having had a wrong-headed Opposition régime which allowed those things to take place there. I do not want future generations of South Africans to be saddled with further penalties. That is why we do not want to do the wrong thing now for which our people will subsequently have to be paid out at very great cost.

The hon. member for Mooi River also had a great deal to say about profits and losses. He and the other hon. members did not understand the position correctly. The hon. members would do well to go and read my speech again and see what I said about profits. Nowhere did I say that anybody, for example agents or Bantu undertakings, should work on a no-profit basis, but I stated clearly, and I repeat it, and I shall keep on repeating it because I believe what I say, that profit is not the only consideration, and that we must not allow profits to blind us to all other considerations; and I said this particularly in respect of the corporations and not so much in respect of the agents. The hon. the Deputy Minister was quite right then in mentioning the good example of a poorly-paying coal mine. Of course we are grateful if an undertaking of a corporation yields a good profit, but our pursuit of profits is not the only aim; we also strive to create employment for the Bantu. Of course, we want all possible undertakings to be tackled in the Bantu area with a view to creating employment for the Bantu, and all those things to which this leads, even though the profit margins are rather small. But naturally this is not the basis on which private organizations function; they only function on a basis of profits. An ordinary company wants to make as much profit as possible with the smallest possible staff, whereas we say that as many as possible should be employed, even though the profits would consequently be less. I maintain that this is the right way to tackle development in the Bantu areas.

Would the Minister just reply to me on the point I made? When a factory which is functioning on a very unusual profit margin passes into the hands of the Bantu, what happens to the Bantu then?

I have stated clearly that what I have said up to this stage, relates to the corporations. I now want to reply in regard to agencies. Nowhere did I state, as hon. members opposite kept on chanting in a chorus, that I expected some of the agents or some of the contractors to go and operate there by way of charity. I stated it emphatically as one of the principles that whereas the agency or the contractorship which will, by agreement, be admitted there should also benefit by it, it should not be the only one to benefit by it. The Bantu, the corporation or the tribe, or whoever the agreement was entered into with, should also benefit by it by means of rentals, royalties, profit-sharing, etc. If the agent has operated on a small profit margin, he can turn it over to a corporation; and if a corporation has operated on a small profit margin, then that corporation can turn it over to the Bantu persons if they want to take it over, and if they do not want to do so, the corporation must continue with it. That is the reply to the hon. member’s question. [Interjection.] I cannot reply to further questions. I cannot go on being lectured to in this way by that hon. member. We can discuss the subject with each other again later on.

The hon. member, as well as the hon member for Mooi River, also asked what and how many concessions there would be in the Bantu homelands, referring to the kind of concessions which apply in regard to border industries, for example. I could not quite gather from the hon. member’s speech whether he was greatly in favour of the concession system for border industries or whether he was opposed to it.

That is not relevant.

Well, he is half in favour of it and half against it, but the point is simply this. The concession system has already been developed there for the border industry areas, and due consideration will be given to the question as to in what degree similar concessions can be justified for Whites who act as agents in the Bantu areas, because those agents must employ people, etc., under the existing laws. Consideration can then be given as to whether there should be exemptions, whether concessions should be granted, and then the matter comes before the relevant body which advises the Government and before the various departments. Every matter will be dealt with solely on its merits.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that there were two sets of laws which applied in the white areas and in the Bantu areas in regard to economic undertakings, but that is not the case. I do not know where the hon. member gets that from. I do not want to say that the existing practice is the right one and should always continue to exist, but his factual assertion was incorrect. It is not true that there are two sets of laws for the Bantu and for the white areas. There are various laws which apply in the white areas as well as in the Bantu areas. The Industrial Conciliation Act is one which I have already mentioned. This applies throughout, in the Bantu areas as well, as far as the areas of the various industries extend there. There is the Wage Act, the Apprenticeship Act, the Road Transportation Act, and the Companies Act.

I was referring to economic regulations.

Then the hon. member, who is an old parliamentarian, should really express himself more precisely. The hon. member referred to economic laws, but if he meant economic regulations, then I shall leave it at that.

The hon. member for Etosha asked me a few questions to which I want to reply. Firstly, he asked me whether the minerals which can be mined in the Bantu areas may be mined and processed by corporations, or only by the agents. My reply is that it can be done by both, depending upon what is desirable. It can be done either by the corporations or by the agents on the basis of agreements. He also asked me about Swanla in South-West Africa. We know it is an organization which recruits labour and which also trades there. Trade, in particular, is in actual fact something which should be undertaken either by the Bantu themselves or by the corporations, and nothing has as yet been decided in regard to this aspect, but negotiations will in due course be conducted with Swanla. He also asked me whether it was not correct that members of the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa should also be excluded from membership on boards of directors of these corporations. My reply to that is that he has only to move an amendment to that and I will accept it The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) asked about development possibilities in Insizwa in the Transkei. The position is that there was uncertainty about in whom the mineral rights there were vested, but this uncertainty has been cleared up now and attention will therefore be given to individual cases of people who are interested in prospecting for minerals there. It will be possible to consider their cases. But the hon. member made a mistake in what he went on to say by intimating that the agencies to which I referred were concentrated solely on being philanthropic, on a labour of love. It occurs to me that I have already replied to that. It is not the case. They are not being expected to operate philanthropically at all, and if they do not want to operate on a basis on which we can agree, they need not come forward.

The hon. member for Hillbrow, like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, spoke about integration, which he put on a par with “interdependence, because one group needs the other”. It is a mistake to phrase it in that way. It is not concerned with group co-operation. It is not the group of Whites and the group of Bantu who are co-operating in the mines, because that is the example he used, if I remember correctly. There is no group co-operation; it is on an individual basis. This is the mistake the hon. member must rectify in his own mind, i.e. that when we warn against integration it is not a question of group as opposed to group, but of individuals who are being integrated to equal labour with other individuals, i.e the Whites, whose homeland this is. The hon. member asked whether we could have considered this Bill if the concept of independence for Bantu homelands had never cropped up. My reply is that the history of the precursor to this Bill furnishes one with the reply. As the precursor to this Bill we already had the Trust in the earliest years, and I pointed out in my speech that since 1936 the Trust has undertaken all kinds of things, all kinds of economic work as well as agency work, when there was as yet no mention of the possibility of independence for the homelands. In 1959 the Bantu Investment Corporation Act was also introduced, the basis on which this measure is now elaborating further. When that Act was drafted and introduced here, there was as yet no such thing as a Transkeian parliamentary system either, something which only came into being in 1963. Surely the hon. member knows what the reply is. Surely he can look it up, he who is so fond of looking things up. It is very clear that what this Bill is establishing, has nothing to do with the statement “because the Bantu nations will or can one day be independent”. It is an inherent development process which is desirable in terms of our policy. It was already present in embryo form in the earliest phases of our administration under the Bantu Trust Act. It was subsequently continued by the Bantu Investment Corporation Act and the other Act which was introduced. I think the hon. member may be grateful for the lesson I have now given him.

The hon. member for Kensington mentioned one further point to which I have to reply, and then I am going to resume my seat. I have already replied to his other points. The hon. member quoted from the statements of one of the corporations and said, “Look, they are investing in Saambou—is Saambou a Bantu undertaking?”

I did not stretch out my arms like that; I spoke properly.

Oh, you spoke properly. Well, the hon. member must not think that I am being improper now, but I wish he could hold a mirror in front of him when he speaks in order to see what he looks like when he is speaking. The hon. member asked, properly or improperly, whether Saambou was a Bantu organization.

Well, is it?

The hon. member must go and have a look at what is stated in the Act of that corporation, whether it does not have the right to invest money in that undertaking. It is stated quite explicitly in the powers of that corporation in the Act introduced years ago, not the Bill, that if the corporation has temporary funds which it does not want to use at once, it may invest them. As regards the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Act states that it can invest where it pleases. As regards the Xhosa Development Corporation, the Act states that the money must be invested in an undertaking approved by the Minister. The prescribed procedures have been complied with in the investment of those funds. There is nothing wrong with that.

I did not say so.

Why then does the hon. member ask whether Saambou is a Bantu undertaking? What is the suggestion behind that question? I say there is nothing wrong with that; they can invest the money where they please, from the Public Debt Commissioners to the building societies, if the necessary approval is obtained. This aspect is worded in a slightly different way in this measure, and the hon. member may as well go and look it up in order to see how it is worded in this Bill. Perhaps he will then understand it better.

In addition I just want to say the following, arising from what the hon. member and several other hon. members on the opposite side have said. They tried so frequently to reproach us with the Tomlinson Report and Professor Tomlinson. I find it very strange that that report should now have become such an extremely valuable document to that side. It has in fact become their political Koran. Originally they did not want to have anything to do with that report. They do not accept the basis, the fundamental principles of that report.

Of course.

The hon. member says “of course”. In this House they pecked at that report here and they pecked at it there.

This side accepted it; we accepted it.

That hon. member must keep quiet about the Tomlinson Report. He whole-heartedly acclaimed it from this side, when he was still here.

Of course, and I still do.

Now they are pecking out eyes here and there from the Tomlinson Report. The basis and philosophy of that report is …

It was accepted by this side.

The upliftment of the reserves was accepted by this side.

The basis of the report, namely separate development, is not accepted by those hon. members. I do not know why they are trying to ride bare-back on the Tomlinson Report. The report they should ride bare-back is the Fagan Report. Sir, I have had my say.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the Expropriation Act was passed in 1965, it has been applied on several occasions to obtain land from owners who were either not prepared to dispose of their land to the State on a voluntary basis, or prevented from doing so by fideicommissary provisions. Although the Act has not yet presented any problems in practice, its application has brought to light certain shortcomings which we should like to rectify timeously.

Expropriation of a person’s property is a drastic step which should not be resorted to lightly. Sometimes it is of course unavoidable, since the interests of the individual must necessarily give way to public interest. One principle must be maintained, throughout, however, and that is that the person who is deprived of his property must not suffer any loss. Both the Act and this amending Bill comply with this principle, but we must also take care that public funds are not spent unnecessarily, all the more since the Act may be applied by local authorities and its provisions are incorporated in legislation authorizing educational institutions and private entrepreneurs to expropriate land or rights to land. I shall deal with the various clauses briefly.

Clause 1 of the Bill allows the expropriating authority, at its discretion, either to make an offer of compensation or to inform the owner that he must declare within 30 days what amount he wants to claim as compensation. In the second case this authority in practice usually notifies the owner as to whether it is prepared to meet the claim and, if not, what amount it is in fact prepared to pay. The authority is, however, at no time under any obligation to make an offer, which is actually unfair to the owner, who is obliged to submit a claim. Moreover, with a view to the awarding of costs in proceedings which may be conducted to determine the compensation, it is desirable that an offer should be made prior to the proceedings. The clause makes it compulsory in future for the authority to make an offer after the owner, as is expected of him, has submitted a claim. Such an offer is conveyed to the owner in the same manner in which the notification of the expropriation was delivered to him. The authority is allowed to make an offer even though the owner fails to fulfil his statutory obligations.

The Act provides for the payment of interest on the amount of compensation as from the date of expropriation to the date of payment. With a view to curtailing the expenditure on interest as far as possible, it is proposed to amend the Act so as to make the full amount of the compensation offered, or any portion thereof, payable on the date of expropriation or thereafter, even though the amount of the compensation has not yet been determined, without prejudicing the right of the person whose property has been expropriated, to go to court. In the event of a smaller amount being awarded as compensation, it is incumbent upon the owner to repay any reduction ordered by the court, together with interest. Except in exceptional cases where the land is expropriated so urgently that a valuation of the land is not available on the date of expropriation, the amount of the compensation offered may be paid on the date of expropriation, but in practice it may be desirable to pay only three quarters of the amount, in order to exclude any danger of losses being suffered should the court determine a smaller amount and the owner be unable to repay the reduction.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, since the possibility of an offer not being made is being excluded, the alternative words are being deleted. Any person whose land has been expropriated has six months’ time from the date of the notice of expropriation to ask the court to determine the compensation if he is not satisfied with the compensation offered. It is, however, not a requirement, nor is it always possible, to make the offer at the same time as the notice of expropriation is served. It may therefore happen that the person whose property has been expropriated has less than six months in which to approach the court. The Act is now being amended in such a way that the period of six months will commence on the date of the offer, if the notice does not contain the offer.

I now come to clause 3. The rate at which interest must be paid on the amount of compensation may be determined from time to time after consultation with the Minister of Finance. In order to avoid any suggestion of unfairness, the same rate has been decided upon as is charged in respect of State loans and State advances. The latter rate is amended from time to time, with the result that the interest which is payable in the case of one expropriation, must be adapted to each amendment. something which is in conflict with the practice followed in regard to the levy in respect of State loans. It is therefore only fair that the interest rate which applied on the date of any particular expropriation be paid throughout in respect of that expropriation. The proposed amendment makes provision for this and at the same time provides that the rate which is applicable to State loans applies to expropriations as well. The practice which we have thus far followed, is therefore now being incorporated in the Act.

In terms of section 6 (1) the person whose property has been expropriated must within 30 days after the date of the notice of expropriation declare in writing what he claims for his land or property. The cost of court proceedings in connection with compensation is awarded with due regard being had to the amount of that claim and the amount of the offer. There is, however, no penalty if the person whose property has been expropriated should fail to submit such claim within 30 days, which can make matters very difficult. Payment of the compensation can hardly be expected to be made before it is known what the owner claims. In the meantime, while he is delaying his claim, the statutory interest is accruing. We are now inserting a provision which boils down to the fact that if the owner’s claim is not received within 30 days of the date of notice, interest will cease and will only begin accruing again after receipt of the claim. Provision is also being made for the possibility that an owner might decline to accept the provisional amount which is paid to him. In such a case no interest need be paid on the amount.

Section 8 of the Act provides how compensation is to be determined, and that account shall be taken of the cost of any works being constructed or undertaken to be constructed for the benefit of the person to be compensated, “with a view to mitigating his damage”. The effect of the words quoted is to place the expropriating authority under an obligation to prove that the relevant costs have in fact been incurred to mitigate the damage. Since the authority may on its own, or at the request of the person whose property has been expropriated, incur costs without it necessarily being the intention to mitigate the damage, and since the person whose property has been expropriated will in any case have the benefit of the works concerned, the authority ought in any case to enjoy the benefit of the mitigation of the damage by subtraction from the cost. The words “with a view to mitigating his damage” are accordingly being deleted.

I now come to clause 4. In case the court decides that the owner must bear the costs of proceedings, it is essential that the other party should be able to set off any fees still owing to the owner, against those costs. The Act makes the necessary provision as far as the compensation fees awarded by the court are concerned, but does not refer to any interest which may be owing. Provision is now being made here for interest also to be applied towards the payment of the cost of proceedings.

In connection with clause 5 I want to say the following. Section 11 deals with the circumstances of any dispute between the owner and a mortgagee and provides that the expropriating authority may refer the dispute to the court. It is, however, regarded as undesirable that the authority should interfere in such a case. The provisions concerned are therefore being deleted.

Clause 6 provides that if land expropriated in terms of the Act is encumbered by a mortgage. no compensation may be paid, except to a person agreed upon by the owner and the mortgagee. Until these two parties come to an agreement, payment is not possible and the money must be retained by the expropriating authority until the dispute has been settled. In the meantime no interest is payable in respect of the money. It is a deficiency, however, that although the dispute may be settled and interest is therefore payable from that date, the owner and the mortgagee may fail to notify the expropriating authority accordingly. It is now being provided that the money be retained until they serve the necessary notice, which will mean that the interest will also only accrue from that moment.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment has become necessary to introduce sound and better administration into the legislation. I trust that the House will give this measure its unanimous support.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House shall support this legislation. The hon. the Minister rightly said that it is necessary to facilitate the application of the Act, and it is in everyone’s interests that this be done.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The majority of the Acts, ordinances and other measures which have the force of law and which were passed prior to Union in 1910 by the legislatures of the territories comprising the Republic to-day, are, from the nature of the case, only in English or in Dutch. Ever since 1928 efforts have been made to revise these measures either by making them available in both official languages by way of re-enactment or suitable incorporation in existing measures, or by repealing them where they have fallen into disuse. In this way no fewer than 660 of the old laws were repealed last year in terms of the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act, 1967. The need for the continuation of the rest is still being investigated, and the object of the Bill before the House at the moment is in fact to repeal three old laws in force in the province of the Cape of Good Hope relating to quitrent tenure and the disposal of certain land, and to provide for matters incidental thereto.

The proclamation of Sir John Cradock, issued early in the nineteenth century, has served its purpose. Land that was allotted under that proclamation, is subject to certain rights, inter alia, the reservation to the State of mining rights in respect of precious stones, gold and silver. Such a right will naturally remain in force where it has been included as a specific condition in the title deed in respect of the land concerned, even if the proclamation by which it was originally established should be repealed. However, the position is different where the title deed only contains a general reference, for instance that the allotment of the land is subject to the provisions of the relevant proclamation. In such a case that provision will be annulled upon the repeal of the proclamation. The Bill therefore provides for the continuation of any such right notwithstanding the repeal of the old proclamation.

In so far as the other two Acts are concerned the object of the Wynberg Municipal Council Vacant Lands Act, 1896, was to vest certain land in the Municipality of Wynberg (at present part of the Municipality of Cape Town), while the Griqua Claims and Kokstad Erven Disposal Act, 1899, provided, inter alia, for the disposal of vacant plots in the Kokstad municipal area—in both cases subject to a right of repossession by the State upon payment of a compensation in respect of improvements.

The possibility was investigated of incorporating the said right in a substantive law upon the repeal of the old Acts, so that the latter may be done away with completely. In order to be able to do this, the land in respect of which the right of repossession is in force would have to be clearly defined. This would involve a complicated and cumbersome investigation, considering the numerous divisions, consolidations and re-divisions over a long period which would have to be taken into account. This would not only be an expensive process, but also a time-consuming undertaking which would not be justified, considering the present shortage of manpower in the survey and deeds offices concerned, and the object of the investigation. Consequently it is proposed to repeal the Acts in question and provision is made in the Bill for the continuation of the right which the State or any person has in respect of the land referred to, or the conditions subject to which any such land is held.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support this Bill. The Minister rightly says that this Bill provides for the repeal of the old laws, most of which should be repealed. One of the conditions of the proclamation of Sir John Cradock in regard to perpetual quitrent farms, should not be re-enacted, namely that which provides for the State to be able to make roads and to take the materials for making those roads free of compensation. I discussed this matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believed that he informed the Minister of our objection. He agreed with us that that provision should be removed. He said that he would either move an amendment to that effect in the Committee Stage or, if that could not be done there, then in the Other Place. I hope that the hon. the Minister will agree to this. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already said that he is prepared to have that provision deleted. I think that the hon. member for King William’s Town would like to go into more detail in regard to this matter.

I should like to refer for a minute to this Cradock proclamation and what it entails. I was disappointed to see that this was going to be repealed and that the rights of the State as those rights affect the landowners in the Cape, specifically in the Eastern Cape, were left untouched. It is interesting to see that Sir John Cradock in 1813, when South Africa was as yet virtually undeveloped, already realized the importance of agriculture and wished to encourage it. On that account he included the following in the preamble of that proclamation—

The proclamation thereupon converted the loan tenure of the time into a permanent tenure. We find that in clause 3, as follows—

I now come to clause 4, where we want an amendment. The rights which the State reserves unto itself I believe to be wrong. As the Minister has pointed out, section 4 reserves no other rights than the rights to the mining of precious stones, gold and silver “as also the right of making and repairing public roads and raising materials for that purpose on the premises”. Well, the circumstances prevailing at that time warranted this—after all, these were loan farms given to the people whilst the Government took unto itself the power to take land as and when required without paying for it. The retention of these rights in perpetuation seems to me to be unfair because there will now be a discrimination in the Cape as between owner and owner, depending on the type of his tenure. The owner of land under a system of quitrent suffers as against the owner who has land on freehold title. In the latter case the State has the right to expropriate the land “subject to adequate compensation being paid”. If the owner is dissatisfied with that compensation he may even go to arbitration. But in the case of quitrent owners, the State can take whatever property it wants without paying any compensation whatsoever. Nowadays the State does pay compensation but only as a gift, by way of an ex gratia payment. The owner has no legal argument against the compensation offered and has no recourse to arbitration. The effect of this can very clearly be seen in the relevant ordinance of the Cape Divisional Council where this proclamation is followed virtually word by word. Section 131 (1) reads—

In subsection (3) it states—

That is the part covering the quitrent people, who, although they are in actual fact being paid compensation, have no right to object to the amount. This is the important point of this proclamation—the right which we do not want to see incorporated in the new system. We see it also as part of the effort of the Provincial Council to put this matter right, because they have over the years been asking for the repeal of this proclamation. On the 20th May, 1965, for instance, the hon. member for King William’s Town in the council, Mr. van Coller, moved—

The mover wanted quitrent land placed on the same footing as freehold land in this respect. Last year there was another motion on very much the same lines. I am not going to read the motion in full. I want to refer, however, to the concluding words where the mover asked for an investigation to be instituted “on the procedures and methods of obtaining land by the State, whether such acquisition be either by negotiation or expropriation notwithstanding the conditions of tenure of such land”. It is interesting to see that the chief Government spokesman in the council on that occasion …

Order! I think the hon. member is going too far now.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I merely want to demonstrate the necessity for the Minister amending this Bill …

Order! What happened in the provincial council is not relevant. I think the hon. member has already stated his case.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is only enlarging upon his argument why these restrictions should be removed and whether the rights the State is reserving unto itself should in fact be retained. I submit, Sir, that it is relevant.

The hon. member was given ample opportunity for stating his case.

Hon. members must remember that the purpose of this measure is not to effect changes in the old position. Even if we did make provision for matters requested by hon. members, a lengthy investigation would be required before they could be rectified. But surely the hon. member himself admitted that it is the practice to-day that where land is expropriated —be it by local authorities, by the provincial council, or by the divisional council—compensation is in fact paid. The State has taken powers of expropriation unto itself in various Acts over the years. So, for example, the South African Railways may expropriate any land required for the building of a railway line, even without paying compensation. But usually this is not done. It is no longer the practice to-day. The practice of not paying compensation is completely out-dated. One cannot grant or take away rights in this Bill, because then one will be interfering with the entire basis of these ordinances. I just want to point out that even if, for example, legislation would be passed which does away with the right to raise material for roads on the land, it would, as far as I can see, make very little difference to the present position, because it is a fact that there are many subsequent laws that grant these powers to the State or to the authorities.

Repeal the lot.

All that is being done here is to do away with the number of Acts and ordinances in which these provisions are embodied, without granting or diminishing any rights. This is the reason for this Bill. If hon. members can make out a good case as to why the powers which are being retained here and which existed under these ordinances and decrees should be done away with, I am quite prepared to listen to them, but then we will have to submit other legislation repealing that legislation. If hon. members can make out a good case as to why this should be done, I am prepared to introduce such legislation here to rectify the position, but we cannot do this in this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

When this debate was adjourned, I had indicated to the House that first of all we were opposing this Bill. I gave our reasons for doing so. Those reasons were based mainly on two factors; first of all, that while the hon. the Minister gave a reason for wanting to exempt himself from the provision of an ordinance, in the Bill in fact he exempts himself from the provisions of any and all ordinances. Secondly, because we were against the principle of putting into the hands of the Minister licensing, in proclaimed areas. We felt that this was perhaps being used as a substitute for proper planning in those areas. I gave adequate reasons as to why we believed that this Minister should be in a position, when he proclaims a group area, to make provision for the change-over and for the trading rights which are going to be necessary in that area, without recourse to a measure such as this, which is a further inroad into the rights of local authorities, and a further inroad into the lives of people and their means of earning a livelihood. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say that he is doing this for the benefit of the people in that area. We do not know that. We have never had any experience of the hon. the Minister as a licensing officer, and we do not know whether he is adequately qualified for the job. We believe that the people who are there, who should in fact and do in fact know the requirements of the area, are in a far better position to deal with licensing applications in an area. I have no doubt, as I have indicated, that any local authority, for the benefit of the people who fall under its rules and regulations, would obviously be prepared to co-operate with the hon. the Minister to achieve the best results in the area, not only for the benefit of the local authority but for the benefit of those people who are in fact going to live in the area.

You will remember, Sir, that I said in summing up that I believe that when once one starts upon legislation of this kind—group area or community development legislation— it becomes necessary to add more and more rules and regulations to enable you to carry it out, and I likened it to a creeping autocracy. I do not know if that is quite the right word. It might in fact be a type of creeping bureaucracy, that is necessary for the adequate application of this kind of legislation. But whatever it is, I think the Minister understands clearly what I mean. He will go on bringing further amendments to this House to enable him to do all the things that crop up as the result of his doing this sort of thing. It is one of these never-ending things; it is like Parkinson’s law being applied to land and areas and to a service and to a department. This thing is going to grow out of all proportion. I think it is out of all proportion now. Here the hon. the Minister, when he has this huge organization handling the question of the implementation of the group areas legislation, has to come back here and admit that because he cannot plan it properly he has to take further and further powers from the local authorities to make sure that he can allow into those areas only those people whom he wants to allow in. This is wrong; it is something with which we cannot possibly agree. As I have said, the hon. the Minister has exempted himself from all provincial ordinances; he has exempted himself from the provisions of all local authority by-laws and the like, so he has absolute power to do what he wants in these areas; there is nothing to stop him, and even with these vast powers, which I think are unprecedented in the history of this country in normal times, he wants still further legislation; he wants to arm himself still further to try to achieve the objectives of this law. One wonders if before long, when the hon. the Minister arrives at the boundary of a city or a town, the mayor will not have to meet him and hand over his mace or his gold chain of office as a sign of submission to this Minister and as acceptance of the fact that When the Minister enters into a local authority, the mayor has no jurisdiction there. We oppose this measure.

I rise because it is my privilege not only to support the amendments contained in this amending Bill, but also to support the new principle embodied in clause 6, as it indicates to me the absolute necessity of developing our communities further, also in regard to their commerce. This Bill really has two facets. On the one hand it is intended to rectify the flaws in the principal Act, the Community Development Act, and on the other hand we have clause 6, which established the new principle of licensing control. Sir, as was the case this afternoon, we had the experience last Friday morning of listening to the extremely frustrating speech made by the hon. member for Umlazi. I call it frustrating, because the entire spirit in which he made it and the entire subject matter of his speech testified to the complete absence of any idealism, idealism that hon. members should have when making contributions concerning the establishment and development of our communities. Perhaps I must not take it amiss of the hon. member, because when the United Party had the privilege of governing this beautiful country of ours, chaos and a great deal of misery prevailed in the field of community development. But in spite of that, the hon. member for Umlazi tried to ridicule measures intended to serve our communities and tried to suggest that they were impossible, while the hon. member and his colleagues on that side should be aware of what is expected of them as an Opposition. They should not indulge in suspicion-mongering whenever measures aimed at dealing with delicate situations are involved. One does not expect this of a responsible Opposition. It makes our task on this side much more difficult if we have to go and convince our people outside that hon. members on the other side are still playing a fair part as an Opposition in this House. But that is not all. I need only refer to phrases used in season and out of season by that hon. member. He said, for example: “The thinking behind that clause worries me.” He went on to say: “What experience does the Minister have as regards determining how many licences there are to be in any particular area?” Sir, we realize that the hon. the Minister, as we know him, will not take any notice of these silly remarks. But what about that large group of brilliant Government officials constituting our Department of Community Development, persons who devote their lives to the development of communities, and who have brought about a permanent and splendid change in our cities and towns in South Africa? Must that hon. member refer to them in that way?

We do not want to issue licences.

Of course not. The principle of licensing control is an old one in our licensing law, and if that hon. member knows anything about his Province, then he will know that Natal made a law in this regard as far back as 1850, namely Act 3 of that year. In order to see the major objections of a general nature raised here this afternoon, in the right perspective, I want to ask how licences are issued in South Africa when this Community Development Act does not apply. I think that for the sake of clarity we may say that it is the duty of the local authority, but before an applicant may apply for a certificate authorizing the official of Inland Revenue to issue the actual licence, the local authority must first comply with certain preliminary requirements. These preliminary requirements are general requirements in South Africa. We may summarize them by saying that there are four such preliminary requirements. The first is that the building must comply with certain requirements. The second requirement is that there must be adequate provision for fire protection. The third requirement is that the premises must be situated in an area where such a type of licence can be accommodated, and the fourth—and this is important in this regard—is that the person concerned must be a fit and proper person. But then Natal has laid down a fifth requirement, and that is that it must also be for the reasonable convenience of the general public. These are the regulations generally applicable in South Africa, except that there are certain variations in the various Provinces.

Over against that we now have the amendment proposed in clause 6. A new principle is being laid down by clause 6, and as I see the matter, it amounts to this, that the licensing authority may not issue a licence to a disqualified person in a group area without the necessary certificate. Furthermore, a transfer of such a licence may not take place unless the certificate makes provision therefore, and in a designated group area a licence may only be issued to an authorized person if he is in possession of such a certificate, and the same applies in the case of a transfer. In fact, we have parallel cases in our licensing laws, and I should just like to mention one or two examples. Let us take the case of a person who wants to trade as a butcher. What must he do? First of all he must, in terms of the Marketing Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, apply for a butcher’s permit. For the rest he must follow the ordinary procedure. He must apply for a licence certificate, which then authorizes the Receiver of Revenue to issue the licences. But no matter how many licences are issued by the Receiver of Revenue, unless such a person has been granted his butcher’s permit, he may not trade as a butcher. No matter how many certificates the hon. the Minister of Community Development issues, unless the local authority sees to it that the preliminary requirements have been complied with, unless the local authority or the licensing official issues the certificate which authorizes the Receiver of Revenue to issue the actual licence, that person may not trade. Even if the licensing official and the Receiver of Revenue issue their licences and that person does not possess the certificate required, then he may not do business.

But there is a second parallel I may mention to you. In the case of a person wanting to set up a bakery, he may not do so before having obtained the customary permit from the Wheat Board. He may obtain his licence and set up his business only after having obtained that permit. But if he does not have that permit of the Wheat Board, he may not trade as a baker. Now it is being said that the general objection to the proposed law is, firstly, that there is too much interference with the local authorities. I want to ask the hon. member for Umlazi whether he has ever complained about the existence of the Wheat Board or the Meat Board. No, he has not, because in that case institutions are involved, whereas this legislation deals with the further development of separate communities, and their Party is fundamentally opposed to having separate communities; they want a mixed society in South Africa, but this Government will never allow that.

The hon. member raised a second objection, i.e. that the Minister was being granted too many powers. The Minister was now being granted “sweeping powers”. I answer this objection by asking the following question: Who knows the preliminary requirements for, the problems of and the need for the establishment of a group area better than precisely the hon. the Minister and his Department? Who knows the ideals, the aspirations and the dreams of those people better than precisely the Minister and his Department? As a matter of fact, it is only the Department of Community Development that has at its disposal a complete socio-economic survey of all disqualified families and their business concerns. And then this inane question is asked: How can this Minister and his Department say how many trading licences are necessary in a certain group area? I believe that this new provision which is contained in clause 6 will help us in the furtherance of community development. Our ideal is not only to establish communities, but also to see to it that they develop as healthy communities. Over a period of more than 300 years we have evolved our own way of life in this country, and as the population in our cities increases, the demands made on us as rulers become greater. But it is our ideal to see to it that all sections of the population, both White and non-White, lead happy and contented lives and see a future for themselves. Accordingly I believe that the principle contained in clause 6 will ensure that further procedures are devised for developing our communities in the commercial field as well.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central), who has just resumed his seat, says he supports the new principle enunciated in clause 6. I want to ask the hon. member, firstly, whether he has read it, and secondly, whether he understands it. I have always accepted the hon. member as an intelligent person. If he had read and had understood it, I cannot understand how he can support it. He mentioned four conditions that licensing authorities have to comply with, and he mentioned a fifth one which he says only applies in Natal. I can tell the hon. member now that he is wrong, but that is incidental.

The effect of this Bill is going to be to add further conditions to the licensing boards’ problems, but it goes further than that, because it gives this hon. Minister the supreme control and the supreme power over every single licence which will be granted in South Africa.

That is not so.

Hon. members who interject in this way must try to read and understand the Bill. The hon. member made the statement that no matter how many permits the Minister might issue in terms of this provision, it could still not result in the issue of a licence, but he has put the whole question back to front. The provision here is that unless this Minister issues a permit, irrespective of whether there is necessity in the eyes of a licensing board, which is a local authority controlling a local area, a body fully conversant with the needs and requirements of that area, it does not matter how necessary that body might consider the issue of this licence it may not do so. Without a permit from this Minister it is powerless to issue such a licence, and the Bill does not even allow for an appeal by any person who considers himself wronged. As the hon. member for Umlazi said, this is creeping bureaucracy, and what have we found in this world where we have had such bureaucratic principles applied? It has opened the door to malpractices and I want to warn the hon. the Minister now that this can happen if this Bill is forced through.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) also asked who knows the problems better in group areas than the Minister, but I want to say to him that this Bill does not only deal with group areas or only with pro claimed areas. This Bill is going to be applied to the whole of South Africa, to every single licensed premises in this country, if this Government carries out its stated policy, namely that this Group Areas Act will ultimately be applied to every square inch of this country. [Interjections.] We have had the Minister’s second-reading speech. He said that the intention here was that he should control economic development, trading, in areas proclaimed under the Group Areas Act; that he wanted to protect the interests of certain traders who were, as he put it, trading in the wrong areas now. But that is not what is contained in this Bill. This is the thing I cannot understand. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister, too. Is not a natural extension of what he said in his second-reading speech that individuals must be prohibited from going into other group areas to conduct business; that an individual cannot go and buy from a business which is situated in the group area of a different group from the one to which that person belongs? That is the natural extension of what the Minister said.

You are talking a lot of nonsense.

May I put it this way to the Minister: Is it his intention to prohibit the entry of persons of one group into another group area for trading?

To establish a business, yes.

Whether it is to establish a business or not, to prohibit trading. This Minister has specifically exempted four kinds of trader, namely the bunch-buyer, the ostrich-buyer, the hawker and the peddler.

But they do not occupy premises.

That is the very point. It shows that the hon. member for Umlazi was right when he said that the Minister does not know the facts. Every hawker and every peddler has to have fixed premises in terms of the licensing ordinances. That is why I ask whether this is the natural extension. Are hawkers of one race going to be prohibited from hawking in areas occupied by other races? [Interjection.] This is a further interference in the normal rights of the people of this country.

Do you want me to include them in this Act?

No. I am asking whether this is the next step envisaged by the Minister.

What right have you to say that?

Because I say it is a natural extension of the remarks of the Minister in introducing this Bill.

To get to the Bill itself, in clause 6 the Minister takes power to control the issue of licences in any premises and on any land, and he shall decide whether any applicant has the right to occupy or use those premises, and he shall tell the licensing authority whether or not that person can get a licence to trade. Under subsection (2) he also takes the right to order that an existing licence shall not be renewed if he considers that that person should not be trading in that particular area. Sir, I think this Bill should have been re-named. It should have been named the Bill to Promote Improper Interference in Trading and Licensing Affairs by the Minister. Under subsection (3) the Minister takes the power to prohibit the issue of any licence in respect of any premises or land in any group area as defined, and also—and this is the most iniquitous part of the whole of this measure—he takes the power to limit the number of licences of any one kind that may be issued in any one place. The Minister is even going further than just usurping the powers of a licensing authority. In fact, he is now setting himself up as the Lord High Priest of Licences. Even licensing boards are open to argument. Vested interests, any interested parties, have the opportunity to appear before the licensing boards and to argue the question of the necessity for a licence. On what grounds will this Minister decide whether he will grant a permit? I am now referring specifically to this point of more than one of a type of licence not being granted for a particular place. What will he consider in deciding this point? I submit, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Umlazi, that neither this Minister nor the officials of his Department, with due respect to their abilities, really have the necessary expert knowledge to decide whether or not the licence should be the only one of that type in a particular place.

Apart from this, the idea of control by the Central Government is repugnant to many people. It is also repugnant to the members of the Commission of Inquiry into Trade Licensing and other Allied Problems. I quote from page 13, paragraph 113 of that report—

That is the recommendation of a commission established by this Government to investigate this very point. This Minister hereby takes the power to create a monopoly. If a certain type of licence already exists, he can say that no licensing authority will be allowed to grant another similar licence without the permission of the Minister. Why have we a Monopolies Act on the Statute Book? I want to quote again from this report, from paragraph 252 on page 32, where the question of basic economic or socio-political beliefs that are held within the trade are being discussed. This is what it says—

This is the over-riding presumption in our Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act. That is the whole object of the Act, i.e. that there should be competition and freedom of entry. Society allows a person to seek a living in the way in which he thinks best, in the way which he chooses, and when it comes to trade there is a presumption that every individual should be free to enter it, provided he complies with the conditions laid down or suggested by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central). This is to ensure that no one person shall get wealthy, shall accumulate wealth, at the expense of others because he has been given a monopoly.

You have totally misread the proposed section 43A. (3) of the Bill.

The hon. the Minister says I have misread this subsection. I have read both the English and the Afrikaans versions. I prefer to quote from the English version, and this is what it says. I wish to paraphrase it as I read it:“The Minister may by notice in the Gazette provide that no licence shall be issued in respect of any premises or land …”

Why do you pass over the words, “shall for the first time”?

It makes no difference whether it be for the first time or the second time. As I said, I wish to paraphrase this subsection. I start again: “The Minister may provide that no licence shall for the first time be issued in respect of any premises or land if any such licence has already been issued to any person in respect thereof …”. Now, what does that mean?

Continue with that subsection.

Very well—“… that no licence of the same kind as that licence shall be issued to any other person for the first time in respect thereof, unless such person produces a certificate issued by the Minister …. This is the whole point.

That is the important point.

This is the point: Unless he gets a permit from the hon. the Minister. I say the Minister is the one who is creating the monopoly. This is the whole point of my argument, and the Minister has admitted it in his own words. Unless the Minister gives the person concerned permission there can only be one.

But that is not true.

But that is what is stated in the Bill. What does it mean then if it does not mean what I allege? I am sorry but I am unable to follow the Minister’s reasoning. If these words do not mean what I allege, we are playing with them. Any way, Sir, let us leave that point; perhaps the Minister or some hon. member opposite can give us an answer to it. I will be very glad to hear that this is not what the Minister intends, because this to me is terrible, that the Minister can take upon himself the power to create a monopoly. 1 want to get back to this report.

By doing that, is the hon. member getting back to the Bill also?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. In dealing with the principle of this Bill I think that many of the recommendations of this commission apply to it. I continue with paragraph 252 of the report.

Briefly, the corresponding benefits which society derives from freedom of entry and competition enterprise are progress as a result of innovations by newcomers or competitors …

—in other words, there are new ideas, new methods and so on—

This is something which is most important in trading, that this competition is a factor which upholds the standards, and the public can only benefit from competition, but on the other hand it can only be detrimental to the public interests if a monopoly is created.

Paragraph 253 reads as follows—

support a system which restricts competition by limiting the number of licences.

With that I want to leave this report …

Why don’t you read paragraph 360 et seq. as well? Those contain important points.

Paragraph 360?

Those paragraphs dealing with the subject matter of the Bill, not the paragraphs you read.

I am sorry, but I must disagree with the hon. the Minister These are not recommendations of the commission, this is the evidence presented to the commission by the officials of the Minister’s department.

If that is your argument, why don’t you read …

Order! I think the hon. member must read that at home and rather carry on with his speech now.

As I have said, competition, especially in built-up and thickly populated areas, the areas with which the Minister is primarily concerned, is important. Suburban shopping centres depend upon variety and competition. It is no good having a shopping centre where there is only one of each type of business because that does not attract the people. Therefore, if the Minister is going to adhere to the principle of one of each type of licence, he will be doing a disservice to the very people he claims to be assisting. This just goes to show once more, as I said earlier on, that this Minister and the officials of his department are not experts in this particular sphere and I think they should leave it alone. They must keep out of this sphere of licensing. As I said, the creation of monopolies is undesirable; we all condemn that, but the hon. the Minister takes this power to decide how many of each type there shall be.

There is another aspect which worries me with regard to these provisions found in clause 6 of the Bill, and that is; what is the effect going to be on township developers who have already planned and designed premises for certain purposes? Perhaps the premises have already been built and have tenants in them. If the premises have been designed for a specific purpose and the Minister has the power to curtail development in those premises, one might find a developer with a whole block of premises which are completely useless to him. I know there will be people who say: “Oh, well, that is a chance that he takes.” But any developer will have investigated the potential of that area and the commercial potential of the surroundings. He would not have checked on whether the Minister will allow him to …

The only thing I want to do is to say: “You cannot give a licence to A, who is a new intruder in business; it must be given to B, who is a displaced person under the Group Areas Act in another area.”

But this Bill does not say that. I do accept the bona fides of the Minister, but the Bill does not say what the Minister claims. We must debate the Bill on what it contains.

Make that clear if you can.

Will the hon. the Minister accept an amendment to make this clear?

If it does and it meets these points then I will be happy to consider anything in that respect.

Thank you. What the Minister has just said brings me to what I want to conclude with. I want to say that once again we are amazed at the powers which the Ministers have, particularly this Minister, to present a case with such high-sounding ideals based on a Bill presented to this House, with these high-sounding phrases, but a Bill in which we on this side can always find a sting. Therefore I reject this Bill completely.

After having listened to the hon. member who has just sat down, I understand very well why the United Party is going downhill in Natal. The hon. member proved that his Party is without principles, policy, or direction and is staggering along on a road that leads to nowhere. I want to tell the hon. member that the National Party has adopted a definite course and has laid down a policy which they will carry out, come what may. The National Party will carry out their policy without causing other people hardship, as the hon. member suggested they would cause. The hon. the Minister indicated very clearly in his second-reading speech what powers he is asking for in the Bill, and why he is asking for them. The hon. the Minister never asked for the power, as the hon. member suggested he did, to say where a licence will be granted or not, but what he did ask for, was the right to determine who the licensee would be. This legislation is very necessary; it is something which we should have had years ago. I maintain that if we had had this legislation five or six years ago, many of the present problems would already have been solved to-day, and the people who are affected by this legislation would have known where they stood. At the moment they do not know, and that is why they now find themselves in areas where they do not belong. The hon. member also said that the hon. the Minister would now have the power to determine where one might live and where one might have a business undertaking. The group areas laws passed by this House already contain this principle. They provide where one may live and where one may have a business undertaking; it depends upon the race of the person and on the group area which has been set aside for him. Why then does the hon. member come forward with such arguments and ascribe all sorts of unfair motives to the hon. the Minister, in spite of the fact that a few days ago, in concluding his speech, the hon. the Minister made an earnest and sincere appeal to the hon. the Opposition not to draw conclusions from the Bill which are not justified.

I want to mention an example of where the objects of this Bill have already been applied for some time, and that is by the Resettlement Board of Johannesburg. Since business premises have been made available at Meadowlands the Resettlement Board itself has attended the sessions of the Rural Licensing Board of Johannesburg for the consideration of applications for licences for Meadowlands, and they objected to applications where persons did not have a permit from the Resettlement Board to have premises there or to be present there. This has led to hearty cooperation not only between the Licensing Board and the Resettlement Board, but also between these authorities and the people who had been settled in Meadowlands. This cooperation developed because the people knew that they would not get a licence unless they were allowed to be present in that area by law and in the opinion of the Resettlement Board. This system has worked very well. I have never yet heard the Rural Licensing Board in Johannesburg say that powers have been taken away from them, as the hon. member for Umlazi wanted to suggest in his cynical speech. He said that the hon. the Minister would now take away these powers from local authorities. The local licensing authority will, however, welcome this fact, because it will facilitate their own work as they will not issue licences to disqualified persons now and then find out afterwards that these persons do not have the right to be in that area. I maintain that if the United Party-controlled City Council of Johannesburg, which is having great difficulty with this problem, adopts an honest approach to legislation introduced by the Government, they will welcome this legislation, because it will make their task very much easier. For this reason I want to support the legislation, and I am sorry that the United Party’s attitude is so negative. They should realize that if they act in a positive way, as they maintain outside that they advocate the same policy, they will succeed in making an impression upon voters. I happened to take a look at the manifest of the United Party’s candidate for Pretoria (West). In that he states that the first thing he says is that he and the United Party will fight to strengthen and protect the role of the Whites in South Africa. If the United Party therefore adopt such a negative attitude towards this legislation and the voters of Pretoria (West) should read or hear what their attitude is, especially that of the hon. member for Umlazi, that United Party candidate will go and drown himself in the dam at Pretoria West.

I maintain that once this legislation has been placed on the Statute Book, the serious problems existing at present will be solved. The hon. the Minister is here asking for the power to determine whether any person applying for a licence in a certain area has the right to be in that area. It goes without saying that if one wants to be fair one should, before a person settles in a certain area, give him permission to do so, because only then can that person start and develop an undertaking there on which he and the society which he serves can be proud. Then he knows where he stands. If, however, he enters the area on the sly, not knowing whether he will be thrown out of there to-morrow or the day after, how can he establish a proper undertaking there? This idea is important. Another important fact is that the National Party will carry out this policy come what may. The policy is to remove the disqualified traders who are still in the white areas to-day. The trade potential which is developing in their own new areas will then be given to them, so that they will suffer no inconvenience or loss, but will be properly settled in their business undertakings in those areas. At the moment they cannot be removed, and as a result we have a number of Indian traders in Johannesburg who cannot make a decent living because the Whites are not buying from them. The Whites voluntarily refuse to do so. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) must not shake his head now. He should come and take a look in Johannesburg. I am not talking of Natal now, but of Johannesburg. These traders do not make a living if they are far from non-White areas, because the Whites do not buy from them. They are not provided for in their own areas either, because other people come and snatch up the trade potential there. The hon. the Minister is now asking for the power to see to it that these traders are resettled properly so that they may make a living in their own areas. I welcome this legislation and I am glad that the hon. the Minister has decided to take these powers, because I believe that they will contribute towards solving the problem. The hon. the Minister can now prevent unhealthy monopolies from being created, and see to it that disqualified persons who already have a business undertaking in an area are resettled in a qualified area so that they may trade again. The hon. the Minister only wants to regulate these matters by means of his able officials in such a way that justice will be done to all.

Another very important point which I want to make here this afternoon is in connection with these people who are not pitied so very much because the hon. the Minister is allegedly usurping powers for himself. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) asked whether this was again the beginning of interference in the private lives of people by providing what they may do and what they may not do. These powers which the hon. the Minister is going to take will also be to the benefit of traders in those specific race groups. I say this because the hon. the Minister is by that means going to prevent undesirable competition from developing and is going to see to it that those people who are already established in a business will be able to establish themselves in a business in their own areas. It will mean that these people will be able to establish themselves in their own areas without suffering any inconvenience or heavy losses, where they can build up proper businesses. There is another point—and in this connection I would welcome it and I hope that it will be done by the Department of Community Development and the people who plan these areas—and that is that business premises there will be planned in such a way that restrictions will apply in order to prevent unbalanced trade development from taking place in such areas. If you go to the outlying areas of Johannesburg where most of the non-Whites settled themselves in tin shanties and shanty towns in the old days of the United Party, when no planning was undertaken and no provision was made, you will find that there is a business undertaking for every five to ten families. This has meant that not one of those people has been able to make a decent living, and has been largely responsible for the unhygienic conditions in which business is conducted in those areas to-day. I now want to express the hope that when planning is undertaken, business premises will be limited so that it will not be possible to get too many trade licences, which may cause unnecessary competition. Something which does not exist in the Transvaal to-day is that the licensing authority takes over-trading into account when trade licences are issued.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I should like to move—

Agreed to.