House of Assembly: Vol22 - FRIDAY 15 MARCH 1968

FRIDAY, 15TH MARCH, 1968 Prayers—10.05 a.m. QUESTIONS

For oral reply:

Committee on Juvenile Delinquency *1. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions:

  1. (1) Whether an inter-departmental committee was appointed to consider juvenile delinquency; if so, (a) when and (b) which departments are represented on the committee;
  2. (2) (a) how many times has the committee met and (b) when was the last meeting held;
  3. (3) whether any reports have been received from the committee; if so, (a) how many and (b) when; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS (for the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions):
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) 15th June, 1964.
    2. (b) Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

      Department of Justice.

      Department of Health.

      Department of Bantu Education.

      Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

      Department of Indian Affairs.

      Department of Coloured Affairs.

      Department of Labour.

      Department of Higher Education.

      South African Police and the Education Departments of the Provincial Administrations.

  2. (2)
    1. (a) Six times.
    2. (b) 27th October, 1967.
  3. (3) (a) and (b) The Constitution does not provide for the submission of periodical reports but representatives are expected to report back to their Departments and also to advise their Departments on the matter.
New S.A.B.C. Building at Auckland Park *2. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

What will be the estimated cost of the new building of the South African Broadcasting Corporation at Auckland Park.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

The information requested by the hon. member concerns an internal matter of the S.A.B.C. in respect of which particulars are not available to the Minister.

Incident in Durban Harbour Involving “Esso Santos” *3. Mr. D. E. MITCHELL

asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether he will make a statement on the near accident in Durban Harbour on 8th March, 1968, involving the oil tanker Esso Santos with particular reference to (a) the circumstances of this case and (b) the conditions laid down to insure harbour towns and coastal communities against loss or damage caused either directly or indirectly by oil tankers through oil leakage or combustion.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (a) As there was no accident, it would be presumptuous to make a statement which would have to be based on speculation.
  2. (b) The nature of the steps to be taken by the Administration in the event of oil pollution in a harbour or its precincts will depend on the circumstances obtaining at the time. Should leakages affect areas outside the harbour precincts, action would rest with local and other authorities.
Government Vehicles in Road Accidents *4. Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST (for Mr. L. E. D. Winchester)

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether the large number of road accidents involving Government vehicles has been brought to his attention;
  2. (2) whether he has had the reasons therefor investigated; if not, why not.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Yes.
Dining-Room Facilities on Cape Town Station *5. Mr. H. M. TIMONEY

asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether dining-room facilities will be provided on the new Cape Town Railway Station; if so, when; if not, why not.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Yes; towards the end of April, 1968.

Public Bars on Cape Town Station *Mr. H. M. TIMONEY

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether the public bars on the old Cape Town Railway Station were profitable;
  2. (2) whether it is still the intention to provide no public bar facilities on the new station.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes.
  2. (2) Yes.
Dakota Aircraft Accident in Namaqualand *7. Mr. H. M. TIMONEY

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to the accident involving a Dakota aircraft whilst landing with 31 passengers on an airfield in Namaqualand;
  2. (2) whether steps have been taken to ensure that fire fighting appliances and other safety measures are provided at all airfields used by commercial aircraft; if so, what steps.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) Yes, at Buffelsbank in Namaqualand on 29 February 1968. I have to point out, however, that if this is the accident the hon. member refers to, it need not be reported to my Department in terms of the provisions of the Air Navigation Regulations, 1963. The said regulations provide inter alia that only aircraft accidents in which any person suffers death or serious injury or accidents in which the aircraft is substantially damaged be reported to my Department.
  2. (2) Yes, in terms of the provisions of the Air Navigation Regulations, 1963.
Commission of Inquiry into Agricultural Industry *8. Mr. D. M. STREICHER

asked the Minister of Agriculture:

  1. (1) Whether he has received an interim report of the commission of inquiry into the agricultural industry; if so,
  2. (2) whether he intends to lay the report upon the Table; if not, why not;
  3. (3) whether he will make a statement on the matter; if not, why not.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) and (3) fall away.
Mr. W. V. RAW:

Arising out of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply, can he tell us whether any steps have been taken to expedite the report?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The commission of inquiry is still engaged upon its task and it is expediting matters as much as possible.

Revision of Welfare Grants and Subsidies *9. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions:

Whether consideration has been given to the appointment of an inter-departmental committee to review social welfare grants and subsidies to welfare organizations in respect of the four racial groups; if so, what steps have been taken or are contemplated; if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS (for the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions):

No. It has not been found necessary to appoint such a committee as increases in grants and subsidies payable to welfare organizations in respect of the various racial groups, are always made after consultation between the Minister of Finance and the Ministers of Departments responsible for welfare services to the various racial groups.

*10. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

—Reply standing over.

Government House, Cape Town *11. Mr. M. L. MITCHELL

asked the Minister of Public Works:

  1. (1) What is the nature of the renovations being carried out at Government House, Cape Town;
  2. (2) whether the building is being renovated to represent any particular architectural style; if so, what style; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS (for the Minister of Public Works):
  1. (1) Restoration and rendering safe of centre block and renovations and alterations to the wings.
  2. (2) Yes: the building was originally erected by the Dutch East India Company and later additions were executed in the current styles. This fact is acknowledged in the restoration work and the representative styles, starting with Cape Baroque, are being preserved or restored where possible.
Crash Helmets *12. Mr. M. L. MITCHELL

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) Whether the National Institute for Road Research of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has reported to him since 1964 in regard to crash helmets suitable to South African conditions;
  2. (2) whether the South African Bureau of Standards has drawn up specifications for such crash helmets;
  3. (3) whether representations have been made by his Department to the Provincial Administrations for the introduction of legislation to provide for the compulsory wearing of crash helmets by drivers of two-wheeled power-driven vehicles.
The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (1) No.
  2. (2) Yes.
  3. (3) Yes.
Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Arising out of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply, is he in a position to say whether the provinces are in fact going to make such rules?

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I am afraid I cannot reply to that question.

Accidents Involving Two-Wheeled Power-Driven Vehicles *13. Mr. M. L. MITCHELL

asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether statistics are available in regard to the number of (a) fatalities and (b) cases of serious injury involving drivers of two-wheeled power-driven vehicles known as “motor bikes” and “buzz bikes”, respectively; if so, what was the number of such accidents during the latest period for which statistics are available.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:
  1. (a) and (b) Yes.

Number of accidents:

1965

8,157

1966

9,042

January to October

1967

7,821

Number of drivers killed:

1965

123

1966

130

January to October

1967

115

Number of drivers seriously injured:

1965

713

1966

750

January to October

1967

597

Mr. M. L. MITCHELL:

Arising out of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s reply, the question relates to “motor bikes” and “buzz bikes” respectively. Does the hon. the Minister not have figures for each of these classes?

The DEPUTY MINISTER:

No.

Play “South Pacific” *14 BRIG. H. J. BRONKHORST (for Mr. L. E. D. Winchester)

asked the Minister of the Interior:

  1. (1) Whether the play South Pacific was banned in the Republic at any time; if so, on what grounds;
  2. (2) whether the film version of the play shown in this country was cut by the censors;
  3. (3) whether the play is still banned; if not, when was the ban lifted.
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (1) The play South Pacific as such was not banned but the applicant for the production of the play was advised in 1963 not to go ahead with the play in that form as in the Board’s opinion it would be offensive or harmful to public morals in terms of section 12 (1) (b) of Act 26 of 1963.
  2. (2) Yes, the film version of the play shown in this country was cut by the censors.
  3. (3) The play as such was not banned but the advice given to the particular applicant in 1963, not to stage the play in that form, has not been withdrawn.
*Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON

—Reply standing over.

New Addington Post Office, Durban *16. Mr. W. V. RAW

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

Whether a site has been selected for a new Addington post office in the Point area, Durban; if so, (a) how far have negotiations proceeded and (b) when is it anticipated that the post office will be completed.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:

This question has been taken over by the Minister of Public Works, but as he is unable to be present, I have been asked to reply on his behalf:

  1. (a) Yes. Municipality is prepared to sell a half acre site in Scott Street, Addington at R43,000 but requires a strip 64 ft. wide for parking purposes and pavements which is virtually a third of the area and will render the site too small. Negotiations are being conducted with the Municipality to reduce the required strip of land.
  2. (b) It is not possible to give any indication at this stage.
Tenders for Disposal of Government Waste Paper *17. Mr. W. T. WEBBER

asked the Minister of the Interior:

(a) On what dates since 1965 were tenders for the disposal of Government waste paper called for, (b) what are the names of the tenderers and (c) what was the tender price in each case.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:
  1. (a) 21st October, 1966.
  2. (b)
    1. (i) National Salvage Co. (Pty.) Ltd.
    2. (ii) Cape Salvage Co. (Pty.) Ltd.
  3. (c)
    1. (i) R4.00 per 2,000 lbs. unbaled waste paper. R7.00 per 2,000 lbs. baled waste paper.
    2. (ii) R8.00 per 2,000 lbs. unbaled waste paper.
Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question the other day, the hon. the Minister told us …

Mr. Speaker:

Order!

National Advisory Council for Adult Education: Contributions to Christmas Funds *18 Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of National Education:

  1. (1) Whether the National Advisory Council for Adult Education contributed to the Christmas Fund of any newspaper during the financial years since 1960-’61; if so, (a) what was the name of the newspaper in each case, (b) the amount paid, (c) the reasons mentioned in the application for the contribution and (d) the reasons why the amount was granted;
  2. (2) whether the contribution and the amount thereof were acknowledged in the Press.
The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:
  1. (1) Yes.
    1. (a) Die Vaderland and Die Burger
    2. (b) “Die Vaderland Voortrekker Strand-fonds”

1961-’62

R600

“Die Burger-kersfonds”

1963-’64

R400

1964-’65

R800

1966-’67

R800

1967-’68

R800

    1. (c) “Die Vaderland Voortrekker Strand-fonds”: Laying out of sports fields. “Die Burger-kersfonds”: Contribution to remuneration of program organiser.
    2. (d) Deserving applications.
  1. (2) Unknown.
*19. Mr. L. F. WOOD

—Reply standing over.

Bantu Services Levy Fund *20. Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

(a) How much money is there in the Bantu Services Levy Fund at present and (b) at what annual rate is the Fund increasing?

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

(a) and (to) There is no central services fund; monies collected by local authorities in whose areas the Act is applicable retain such monies and spend it in their own areas. As some of the local authorities are working on a debit balance, a total of all the funds will not reflect the true position.

Introduction of Study of Policy of Separate Development in School Syllabuses. *21. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of National Education:

  1. (1) Whether the introduction of the study of the policy of separate development in certain school syllabuses has been brought to his notice;
  2. (2) whether the study of this subject was introduced as a result of a determination by him in terms of section 2 of Act No. 39 of 1967; if so, in what provinces and in what standards had the subject to be introduced;
  3. (3) whether the study of the subject was made compulsory;
  4. (4) whether provision is made for the study of alternative policies;
  5. (5) whether he or the National Advisory Education Council has taken any other steps in regard to the matter in terms of the Act; if so, (a) what steps and (b) on what dates; if not, why not.
The MINISTER OF NATIONAL EDUCATION:
  1. (1) Yes; I assume that here is being referred to the following sections of the new basic core syllabus for History for standard VIII.
    1. (a) The Bantu: new deal after 1948; policy of separate development as reflected in the self-government of the Transkei; the Bantu in the cities, on the farms and in the homelands.
    2. (b) Contribution by the Non-White population groups to the progress of our country, etc.
  2. (2) No.
  3. (3) History is a compulsory subject up to Standard VIII in schools of the Transvaal Education Department and schools of the Department of Higher Education. In the other education departments History is a compulsory subject up to standard VI;
  4. (4) It is the History that is of importance. The policy of the Government since 1948 has been laid down in Acts and the Acts have been implemented. It is therefore History. The various views will most certainly be dealt with by unbiased teachers;
  5. (5) no; the new basic core syllabuses were drawn up by an inter-departmental committee consisting of representatives of all the education departments and the syllabuses were referred to the Committee of Educational heads for approval. I have full confidence that teachers will deal with this section of the syllabus in a fair and unbiased way.
*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, may I ask him whether the policy of the Governments prior to 1948 will also be regarded as “history”?

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

Dr. E. L. FISHER:

Arising further out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, can he tell me whether maps of the areas involved are included in these text books?

Mr. W. V. RAW:

Further arising out of the Minister’s reply, may I ask him what pre-1948 history is taught in regard to these subjects?

*The MINISTER:

I cannot say. I have replied to the question that was put to me. This is not a matter for the Minister of Higher Education. It was submitted by educationists and I have no objection to it, but if hon. members are very anxious to know what the entire basic core syllabus comprises, I can furnish them with that information.

Bantu Night Schools and Continuation Classes

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION replied to Question *6, by Mr. L. F. Wood, standing over from 12th March:

Question:

(a) How many applications by private white persons have been (i) received and (ii) approved for the establishment in white areas of night schools and continuation classes in terms of Government Notice R.26 of 5th January, 1962, (b) where are the schools situated and (c) what is the enrolment at each school.

Reply (laid upon Table with leave of House):

(a)

(i)

Night schools

17

Continuation classes

6

(ii)

Night schools

17

Continuation classes

6

  1. (b) and (c) (Enrolments as on 30th September. 1967)

Night schools:

Name of school

Where situated

Enrolment

1.

Rosebank

Johannesburg

36

2.

Davies Street

Johannesburg

90

3.

Mayibuye

Johannesburg

180

4.

University

Johannesburg

123

5.

Isaacson

Johannesburg

12

6.

Retreat

Cape Town

34

7.

St. Mark’s

Cape Town

42

8.

Burger Street

Pietermaritzburg

486

9.

Salvation Army

Pietermaritzburg

121

10.

Topham Road

Pietermaritzburg

76

11.

Buchanan

Pietermaritzburg

341

12.

Diocesan

Cape Town

closed in 1963

13.

Green Street

Cape Town

closed in 1962

14.

Dock

Cape Town

closed in 1963

15.

Windermere

Cape Town

closed in 1965

16.

African Explosives & Chemicals

Somerset West

closed in 1963

17.

B.C.A.

Barberton

never Functioned.

Continuation classes:

Name of school

Where situated

Enrolment

1.

Isaacson

Johannesburg

18

2.

University

Johannesburg

98

3.

Retreat

Cape Town

29

4.

St. Marks

Cape Town

11

5.

Windermere

Cape Town

closed in 1965

6.

Durban

Durban

never functioned.

Remarks:

  1. 1. The night schools numbered 1 to 11 and the continuation classes numbered 1 to 4 closed at the end of 1967.
  2. 2. Except for night schools and continuation classes in compounds or hostels on mine and factory properties, local and other authorities or schools and classes situated on farms of European owners, application for registration in respect of all night schools and continuation classes in European areas must be made yearly. Registration is approved for one calendar year only. The number of applications mentioned above, are in respect of schools for which applications for registration were received for one or more years since 1962.

For written reply.

Telephones Installed in Bantu Townships 1. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

How many telephones for private use were installed in (a) Kwa Mashu, (b) Chatsworth and (c) Austerville during 1967.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (a) 9.
  2. (b) 74.
  3. (c) 11.
Postal Deliveries in Durban Area 2. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

(a) Which residential zones surrounding Durban receive two postal delivery services per day and (b) when was the second delivery per day introduced in each case.

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (a) None, owing to the shortage of manpower and accommodation difficulties.
  2. (b) Falls away.
3. Mr. T. G. HUGHES

—Reply standing over.

Convictions for Possession of Dagga 4. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Justice:

How many (a) juveniles and (b) adults in each race group were convicted for being in possession of dagga in each year since 1964.

The MINISTER OF JUSTICE:

The required statistics, which are kept under one heading, are as follows:—

1.7.63 to 30.6.64

1.7.64 to 30.6.65

1.7.65 to 30.6.66

1.7.66 to 30.6.67

Whites

862

775

899

1,006

Coloureds

4,441

4,447

5,762

6,573

Asiatics

574

496

588

624

Bantu

15,516

14,254

16,493

19,664

Refreshment Facilities on non-White Main-Line Trains 5. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether refreshment facilities are provided on main-line trains for non-White second and third class passengers; if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Yes; refreshments are served in their compartments. Dining-saloon facilities are, however, not provided as a rule, as experience has proved that the provision of such facilities for non-White passengers is not yet economically justified. Where these facilities have been provided on an experimental basis the results have been disappointing.

Extension of Refreshment Facilities on Trains 7. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Transport:

Whether consideration is being given to the extension of refreshment and other facilities on trains; if so, what facilities.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Having regard to the generalized nature of the Question, I am unable to reply.

Special Trains 8. Mr. L. F. WOOD

asked the Minister of Transport:

  1. (1) How many special trains for ordinary passengers and scholars operated between (a) Durban and Johannesburg, (b) Durban and Cape Town, (c) Johannesburg and Cape Town during each month of 1967;
  2. (2) in how many instances were these trains equipped with air-conditioned (a) dining cars and (b) lounge cars.
The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

(1)

(a)

(b)

(c)

1967

Ordinary passengers

Scholars

Ordinary passengers

Scholars

Ordinary passengers

Scholars

January

13

3

11

2

21

8

February

None

None

None

None

None

None

March

11

2

None

None

4

None

April

7

3

2

None

5

None

May

1

None

None

None

None

None

June

3

2

8

1

5

1

July

29

3

10

None

8

1

August

1

None

None

None

None

None

September

14

1

2

None

1

None

October

8

1

2

None

2

None

November

None

None

None

None

None

None

December

24

4

12

None

28

1

(2)

(a)

None

(b)

None

Compensation for Bantu Removed to Area between Elands River and Pilanes Mountain 6. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) How many of the Bantu families who were moved to the area between the Elands River and the Pilanes Mountain, and who are entitled to compensation, have already received compensation;
  2. (2) (a) what is the total value of the compensation paid out or given to date, and (b) to what extent has compensation been given in the form of (i) money, (ii) livestock, (iii) seed, (iv) buildings, (v) other works such as dams, furrows, fences, etc., or (vi) implements.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1) All those who were entitled to compensation have already been paid out.
  2. (2)
    1. (a) R72,853.00.
    2. (b)
      1. (i) Compensation was paid in cash only.
      2. (ii) None.
      3. (iii) None.
      4. (iv) and (v) None. The value of the improvements on the compensatory land was included in the selling price of the land.
      5. (vi) None.
Advertising of Post of “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” 9. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Immigration:

(a) In what publications and (b) on what dates was the post of Manager of its Durban Branch advertised by Die Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie.

The MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION:
  1. (a) Die Beeld and Dagbreek en Sondagnuus and
  2. (b) on the 20th and the 27th August, 1967. I must point out, however, that the post which was advertised was that of Regional Secretary and not Manager.
Durban Regional Committee of “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” 10. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Immigration:

What are the names of the members of the Durban Regional Committee of Die Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie.

The MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION:

Mr. P. Cronje, M.P.C. (Chairman); the Reverend Mr. L. J. J. Nel; the Rev. Mr. P. J. de Klerk; the Rev. Mr. J. J. P. Stofberg; Mr. F. Strydom; Mr. H. Weideman; Mr. D. Meintjies; Mr. P. Hartzer; Advocate W. Booysen; Mrs. E. Stofberg and Mrs. S. Haenen.

Contributions to Durban Branch of “Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie” 11. Mr. L. E. D. WINCHESTER

asked the Minister of Immigration:

Whether the Durban Branch of Die Maatskappy vir Europese Immigrasie received any funds in addition to the amount allocated to it from State subsidies during the financial year ended 30th June, 1967; if so, (a) what amounts, and (b) from whom.

The MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION:

Yes.

  1. (a) R163.01.
  2. (b) the councils of various Afrikaans Churches. In addition chairs to the value of R50 were donated by an unknown person and rental to the value of R436.08 was rebated by Volkskas Beperk.
12. Mr. L. F. WOOD

—Reply standing over.

White Children Absconding from Places of Safety 13. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions:

(a) How many White children absconded from places of safety and detention during each year since 1965 and (b) how many of the absconders have been traced.

The MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS: (a) and (b) No statistics are being kept by the Department of the number of absconders from places of safety and detention and I am, therefore, not able to furnish the hon. member with the information required.
Coloured Children Absconding from Places of Safety 14. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs:

(a) How many Coloured children absconded from places of safety and detention during each year since 1965 and (b) how many of the absconders have been traced.

The MINISTER OF COLOURED AFFAIRS:

(a)

1965

101

1966

116

1967

97

(b)

1965

54

1966

84

1967

81

Indian Children Absconding from Places of Safety 15. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Indian Affairs:

(a) How many Indian children absconded from places of safety and detention during each year since 1965 and (b) how many of the absconders have been traced.

The MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:
  1. (a) The only place of safety and detention for Indians was established on 1st October, 1967 in Durban. Statistics prior to this date are not available. From the 1st October, 1967, to date, 26 children absconded.
  2. (b) 8 were apprehended and 14 returned on their own accord.
Bantu Children Absconding from Places of Safety 16. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

(a) How many Bantu children absconded from places of safety and detention during each year since 1965 and (b) how many of the absconders have been traced.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (a) Details are not readily available and as it would entail a considerable volume of work to obtain them, I regret that I cannot supply the information asked for.
  2. (b) No statistics are available.
17. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

—Reply standing over.

Coloured Reformatories and Schools of Industries 18. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Coloured Affairs:

  1. (1) How many Coloured persons are at present accommodated at (a) reformatories and (b) schools of industries;
  2. (2) (a) how many persons absconded from each (i) reformatory and (ii) school of industries during each year since 1965 and (b) how many of the absconders in respect of each year have been traced.
The MINISTER OF COLOURED AFFAIRS:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) 1,036.
    2. (b) 698.

1965

1966

1967

(2)(a)

(i)

Porter

130

218

261

Faure (Boys)

20

57

27

Faure (Girls)

26

5

14

(ii)

Ottery

152

104

157

Wellington (opened 1st April, 1967)

12

(b)

Porter

109

190

221

Faure (Boys)

14

50

25

Faure (Girls)

11

2

8

Ottery

138

97

147

Wellington

5

Bantu Reformatories and Schools of Industries 19. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development:

  1. (1) How many Bantu persons are at present accommodated at (a) reformatories and (b) schools of industries;
  2. (2) (a) how many persons absconded from each (i) reformatory and (ii) school of industries during each year since 1965 and (b) how many of the absconders in respect of each year have been traced.
The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:
  1. (1)
    1. (a) 1,175 as at 31 January, 1968.
    2. (b) Nil. No schools of industry for Bantu in terms of the Children’s Act, 1960 (Act No. 33 of 1960) have been established.

(2)(a)

(i)

1965

1966

1967

Bekruipkop

44

56

52

Elandsdoorn

12

31

16

Eshowe

20

4

4

Eureka

29

10

42

Vuma

99

118

115

(ii)

Falls away.

(b)

102

109

142

Proposed Place of Safety for White Children, Durban 20. Mr. G. N. OLDFIELD

asked the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions:

Whether a new place of safety and detention for white children is to be established for the Durban area; if so, what steps have been taken; if not, why not.

The MINISTER OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND PENSIONS:

Yes. It is planned to commence with the erection of the new buildings during April, 1969.

21. Mr. L. F. WOOD

—Reply standing over.

Integrated Television and Radio Service 22. Mr. E. G. MALAN

asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

  1. (1) How much of the estimated cost of R24.5 million for a limited and integrated television service together with a radio service comprises (a) capital costs and (b) current annual costs;
  2. (2) whether a service similar to the present broadcasting services is included in this estimate;
  3. (3) what are the main items on which the estimated Post Office expenditure of R8.4 million will be spent.
The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS:
  1. (a) R21 million and (b) R3.5 million (without interest on capital and excluding programme costs);
  2. (2) no, it would have been a service of limited range and restricted to only a few hours a day;
  3. (3) microwave and coaxial cable channels.
23. Mr E. G. MALAN

—Reply standing over.

24. Mr. E. G. MALAN

—Reply standing over.

25. Mr. E. G. MALAN

—Reply standing over.

Running Times of Passenger Trains

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT replied to Question 2, by Mr. L. F. Wood, standing over from 12th March;

Question:

Whether (a) the running times and (b) the arrival and departure times of passenger trains running between Durban and Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg, Johannesburg and Cape Town, respectively, have been altered since December 1965; if so, (i) in respect of which trains, (ii) by how much has the overall running time been reduced and (iii) on which sections of the routes and to what extent has improvement of running times been effected?

Reply:

There have been no alterations to the overall running times or the arrival and departure times of the passenger trains in question since December, 1965, apart from those reflected in respect of the Trans-Natal in the reply to part (d) of Question No. 2 asked by the Hon. Member on Friday, 3rd March, 1967.

Twin Dining Cars on S.A.R.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT replied to Question 4, by Mr. L. F. Wood, standing over from 12th March:

Question:

How many twin dining cars (a) with and (b) without air conditioning at present in use on the South African railways were put in commission (i) less than 5 years ago, (ii) more than 5 and less than 10 years ago,(iii) more than 10 and less than 20 years ago,(iv) more than 20 and less than 30 years ago,(v) more than 30 and less than 40 years ago, and (vi) more than 40 and less than 50 years ago?

Reply:

(a)

(i)

None

(ii)

7

(iii)

4

(iv)

None

(v)

None

(vi)

None

(b)

(i)

None

(ii)

None

(iii)

None

(iv)

14

(V)

16

(vi)

16

FIRST REPORT OF SELECT COMMITTEE ON BANTU AFFAIRS (In Committee)

Report adopted.

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE SAYINGS BANK SOCIETY BILL (Second Reading) *Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society was established 137 years ago. This pioneer institution is unique in that it has no shareholders and the greatest part of its profits is accordingly transferred to the reserves. However, 10 per cent of its profits are paid out every year to about 126 charitable and educational institutions such as the Universities of Stellenbosch, Cape Town and South Africa.

The Society to-day functions in terms of Act 4 of 1949, as amended by Act 15 of 1965. Up to the present the Society has not departed from its basic objects and has at all times conducted its affairs strictly in accordance with the highest traditions of banking practice. As a result of the length of time that has elapsed since the passing of Act 4 of 1949, and the drastic changes that have occurred in the methods and practice in respect of the running of a savings bank and the requirements of the Banking Act of 1965, it has become necessary to amend the constitution of the Society once again, in order to keep pace with all the changes which modern banking practice has undergone and future trends in banking.

In order to enable the Bank to occupy its rightful place in the sphere of modern banking, it has been decided to consolidate and amend the existing legislation relating to the Society.

The powers and objects as stated in clause 5 of the Bill have been formulated as widely as possible, not only to enable the Society to extend its activities, but also to eliminate the need for amending its constitution from time to time in future and also to offer its clients a greater variety of and more comprehensive services in all branches of banking. At present the Society is handicapped too much as a result of its limited powers and is consequently obliged to refer clients to other concerns for the additional services they may require.

Hon. members will notice that in the concluding paragraphs of the preamble to the Bill, the nature of the proposed amendments and the reasons therefor are set out. Therefore it is not necessary for me to repeat them here, except to add that many of the omissions of provisions of the original Act are calculated to modernize the Act, while others again are consequential amendments which proved to be necessary in order to eliminate obscurities and ambiguities. I have pleasure in moving the second reading.

Mr. J. W. E. WILEY:

The Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank Society has its roots deep in the history of South Africa. It was established under the governership of Sir Lowry Cole in 1831, and it has served the people of South Africa loyally and well during all of that time. It is a unique South African institution, as the hon. member for Parow has said, in that it distributes annually an amount of 10 per cent of its profits among charitable, benevolent and educational institutions. It has no shareholders and the balance of its profits, after the distribution of the 10 per cent and after provision for income tax, is put to reserve. The reserves of the bank as at the end of the last financial year, stood at over R2 million. It is in fact South Africa’s oldest savings bank and it caters particularly for the small man. At the moment there are 39,000 depositors, who have deposited in savings an amount of R17 million. Savings are invested by the bank in mortgage bonds, and the mortgage bond investments of the bank at present stand at R11.25 million, while investment in gilt-edged securities amounts to R5.25 million. I think it is interesting to record that the Cape of Good Hope Savings Bank is managed by nine directors and has over 100 members who take a keen interest in its affairs.

There is a prescribed minimum of 100 members who are elected by majority vote after being proposed and seconded, but there is no other restriction on anyone becoming a member of the Society. The only qualification for membership is that they have to live within 50 miles of the City of Cape Town.

As the hon. member for Parow has said, the Savings Bank acts under Act 4 of 1949, which was passed some time ago, and it has become necessary once again to revise and amend the bank’s constitution to cope with the changes in modern banking practice and to cope with the possibility of future changes. Therefore I would say that with a bank with a record such as this, we can confidently look to support from members on both sides of the House in the passing of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

I move, as an unopposed motion—

That the Bill be not committed to the Committee of the Whole House.

Agreed to.

(Third Reading)

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

I move, as an unopposed motion—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Simonstown and all the hon. members of this House for their unanimous support of this Bill, and also to express my thanks for the opportunity which the House has afforded me to take the Bill through all its stages.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

PROMOTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF BANTU HOMELANDS BILL

Report Stage taken without debate.

(Third Reading) The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.
Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

I wish to move the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to pass the third reading of the Promotion of the Economic Development of Bantu Homelands Bill because—
  1. (a) its provisions do not disclose adequate plans for the economic development of the Bantu areas;
  2. (b) the board of directors as provided for in the Bill will be unable to fulfil its duties and functions impartially and adequately; and
  3. (c) the provision for Parliamentary control is ineffective”.

A similar amendment was moved by the hon. member for Constantia in 1959, when the original Bantu Investment Corporation Bill was introduced, and he then stated, in moving his amendment, that he regretted having to do so. I say the same thing. I regret that it is necessary for us to move an amendment at the third reading of this Bill. We had hoped to be able to co-operate with the Government and with other interested bodies in formulating and bringing to this House some plan which would be satisfactory and acceptable to us, to the Government and to economists as a whole.

We are worried, as are leading economists, Nationalist thinkers and even officials of these corporations themselves, as to the suitability of the development which is now proposed. Our concern is not that there is no development; our concern is that the development is not sufficient to meet the exigencies of the situation. The Minister himself has said that there is nothing new in this Bill; it is merely a continuation of existing conditions. The hon. the Minister said, in his reply to the second-reading debate, that it was not necessary to send this matter to a select committee because we had the existing laws to go by and we could test the efficiency of the plan by referring to the efforts of the existing corporations. We say that because of the history and the record of the existing corporations, we felt a need for the appointment of a select committee to consider this whole position.

When it was proposed to create the Bantu Investment Corporation the then Minister of Bantu Administration and Development foresaw great development ahead. He said this institution would fire the imagination of the Bantu and that they would flock to this institution with their investments. But where do they, in fact, invest? They do not invest in the Bantu Investment Corporation on nearly the same scale as they are doing with commercial banks and building societies. As a matter of fact, they are critical of the Bantu Investment Corporation; they are critical of the present system. They say it takes far too long for them to obtain loans—up to six months. In places like Umtata the Bantu are now buying properties and want loans to build. They used to be able to get loans from building societies but this has since been stopped by the building societies. Now these Bantu have to apply to the Bantu Investment Corporation, but every application has to go to Pretoria and applications are inordinately delayed. So, they are in fact not satisfied. This institution has not fired their imagination. On the contrary. The establishment of this Corporation was to bring a new era of Bantu development. When the discussions on the creation of this corporation took place in this House, the hon. member for Constantia quoted from an interview which the then Minister gave to Sondagnuus. The Minister did not at the time deny the accuracy of the report. According to that report he said—

The possibility that South Africa would draw overseas investment for the development of the Native reserves was very favourable. I cannot give any more details at this stage, but I can assure you that there won’t be any problems in this connection.

The report then went on—

It is stated in political circles that if overseas capital is obtainable for investment in the Bantu Investment Corporation, it would to a large extent mean an end to the irresponsible overseas criticisms of South Africa’s colour policy.

Now I want to ask, what has happened about that? Was any overseas capital in fact invested in this corporation? I should like this hon. Minister to tell us. The Minister says “No”. But such investments were in any case not necessary because as it is the Corporation has been unable to use the funds put at its disposal. According to the accounts of the two corporations they have invested moneys in Saambou and in the Nasionale Bouvereniging.

When the original legislation was introduced —I keep on referring to the original legislation because the Minister tells us that this new legislation brings nothing new—the then hon. member for Springs forecast that the Minister would have to come back to this House to amend the provisions of that legislation because the legislation would not give satisfaction. Well, it did happen in fact, because a few years later we had the Bantu Homelands Development Corporations Bill and now we have this Bill.

One of the objections to our suggestion that money, free money as opposed to Government money, should be allowed in is that it will lead to large concentrations of white people in the reserves. But I want to say that if any development in whatever respect is to take place at all there shall have to be concentrations of white people. What is happening to Umtata at the moment? It is whiter than it has ever been. As a matter of fact, there are insufficient houses to house the Whites and as a result the Government has to put up prefabs and is now going to build another block of 20 houses. So, there are insufficient houses for the white people because of the development that is taking place there. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education keeps on asking us—I do not know why he repeats this particular question—whether we shall allow O.K. Bazaars to go to Umtata. Well, why should O.K. Bazaars not be allowed to go to Umtata? Volkskas has gone there. And that is not all. Other chain stores have established themselves in Umtata. Even a printing press has established itself there after the Transkei was given self-government. This printing press forms a branch of Nasionale Pers. The Nasionale Boekhandel has now got a subsidiary in Umtata. So, there is nothing wrong in these people going there. Provision has been made for them to go there. They buy or hire properties in the white areas. If this is so, what then is so wrong about O.K. Bazaars going there? Why should the hon. the Deputy Minister single out this particular undertaking? I say that these other undertakings, undertakings closely connected with the Government, would not have gone there if it was not necessary for them to go there and if there was no opportunity of making a profit. Do Government members want to suggest that these undertakings have gone to Umtata to exploit the Bantu people? Is the Afrikaanse Pers going to exploit the Bantu? Is the Nasionale Boekhandel going there to exploit the Bantu? Is Volkskas going there to exploit the Bantu? You see, Sir, it is absolute nonsense to talk as Government members do on this matter.

In terms of clause 24 of this Bill the Minister will control the boards of these corporations. Although we do not like this clause we have not opposed it in the Committee Stage. We did not do it, for an obvious reason. On an earlier clause we had moved that the Controller and Auditor-General be authorized to audit the accounts and books of these corporations, but that was turned down. That being so, we could only accept the only other form of control offered by this Bill, i.e. that the Minister will have the power to act on behalf of the trustee and can interfere in all matters. That being so, we can hold him responsible and bring him to account in this House where matters have gone wrong. It is because the clause contained this possibility for the exercise of some form of control that we accepted it. But nevertheless we say it is wrong for the Minister to take these powers. He may force the boards to act in a way he wants them to act; he can stop development if he wants to; or he can force them into development which they may regard as unprofitable.

As we have said, we want development, but we want development on a proper scale. It is no good suggesting to us that the scale of development must be in keeping with the ability of the Bantu to absorb that development. That is absolute nonsense. The Minister, for instance, says that there must first be human development, that agricultural development goes with human development or vice versa. But, as I see it, there can be no agricultural development on any scale at all under the present system of land tenure. We have debated this point in this House already. We say that in order to get proper agricultural development the entire system of land tenure will have to be changed. Those Bantu living on uneconomic holdings will have to be taken off. But that cannot be done unless other work is provided for them, work in industries for instance. They shall have to be accommodated elsewhere when taken off the land. So we say that if human development is to go together with agricultural development that there will be no human development either. We, as I say, wish to help. Our past experience has proved that the proposals of the Government are a failure. We want to inspan all the human resources at our disposal in the development of these areas. Dedication, as I have said before, is not enough. Why could we not send this matter to a select committee? Why can we not consult with other people? Why can we not consult with economists and others? After all, the Prime Minister found it necessary to appoint another board of advisers for him when he appointed his Economic Advisory Council. We want to stress again that our fundamental objection to this Bill is the lack of control that Parliament will have over the money which is to be expended. Millions are going to be expended there. Mr. De Wet Nel spoke of towns the size of Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban being built in the reserves. If that is so, Sir, who is going to build them? Where is the money going to come from? We will have to supply the money. We will have to furnish the money, Parliament will have to give it and we ourselves will not be able to control this money which we will give. We do not like either the attitude of this Minister or that of other hon. members on his side who say that this development will take place and they will carry out their policy no matter what the cost.

I am not going to suggest that the Minister is going to squander the money wittingly, or that the directors are going to do that. I am not suggesting that for one minute. But, Sir, in any big organization of this nature, if there is to be any proper planning at all, there is a variety of types of people employed. They are not all honest. They are not all free from corruption. The Minister will know that, and he will know that he has an added difficulty in assuring that he gets the right people into all his corporations to assist him …

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Who are not all honest?

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

I say all the people that you will have to employ may not be honest.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

On the board?

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

No, I said not the board. The Minister is not listening.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

No, I want to get clarity.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

I said the Minister and the board will not wittingly waste the money, but they have to employ a large staff.

In that large staff everybody is not going to be honest or free from corruption.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

Is that not a universal phenomenon?

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

That is the point. It is a universal phenomenon. That is what I am saying. The Minister cannot understand it. That is just what I am trying to point out.

I want to go further. The Minister is going to be handicapped in getting the right people to work for him because of the manpower shortage. He knows that there is such a manpower shortage to-day and it is difficult to get the right people. He is going to suffer from those difficulties as well. We say with the best of intentions there may be wastage of money in these organizations. The public are not investing in these organizations on a voluntary basis. They are not rushing forward to invest their money, to negotiate loans and that sort of thing. The money is coming from the taxpayer. He does not give it voluntarily. We take it from him by force and we give it to these organizations. Therefore we should be in the position to see to it that their money is not being wasted. Under the present system we will not have that opportunity. We have referred to other accounts—for instance the S.A.B.C. accounts. We have referred to the present accounts before us and to what little information is before us. But we have had experience of what happens if the Auditor-General examines the books and makes the reports. Then we have every opportunity in the select committee of getting all those people before us, to come and give an explanation and to give an account of their stewardship.

Now the hon. the Minister and others ask why did we not make some provision for that in 1940 when we established the I.D.C. I want to say that the I.D.C., as it is to-day, is quite a different body from what it was in 1940. The constitution of the body has been changed many times. It is now doing things which we never anticipated in 1940. But, Sir, we have learnt our lesson because of what has happened to these organizations. We have over the years, for at least 15 years, been trying to get a select committee or some body appointed to scrutinize the activities of these different associations. So, I say that the hon. the Minister must not say, because in 1940 we established the I.D.C. without the Auditor-General’s audit, that we must now do the same. We have to learn and profit by experience. That is why we want to take steps now to see that we do not make the same mistakes again.

Sir, we are not satisfied that this Bill is the foundation for the necessary development of the reserves and we are not satisfied that this Parliament will have proper control of the funds which we are to give to this organization. Therefore I move my amendment.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Mr. Speaker, during the second-reading debate and again now the Opposition raised two objections to these measures. The latest one, which they also emphasized heavily yesterday, is the “socalled parliamentary control”. I am also using that term because parliamentary control ought to be exclusively associated with money which has been appropriated by this House. This measure does not only make provision for money which will be spent from funds which are appropriated by this House, but for money from many private undertakings as well. It would probably be the most unprecedented development in the history of parliamentary control if control should be exercised over private undertakings and interests, something which has never occurred anywhere in South Africa. I take second place to none in this House who plead for parliamentary control, but then it should be in regard to matters for which money has been appropriated by this House for specific purposes, when that money has subsequently not been spent for those purposes. This is not the case here. That is why the Opposition’s objections are altogether wide of the mark. They think to make a popular slogan out of it. They think that if one has parliamentary control over these matters, this will carry weight with the nation. The money which is being spent is not being appropriated exclusively by this House. That is why I cannot see any sense in having parliamentary control over money which belongs to private individuals as well. I should just like to repeat one point which the hon. member for Heilbron raised yesterday. Would the hon. gentleman be satisfied to have their income-tax forms and those private accounts of major undertakings who will have a share in this if they have their own way, gone through by the Auditor-General? Of course they will not want to do so. It is merely, and remains, a political slogan and nothing else. That argument falls quite flat—let me just deal with it finally—because it is not only money which has been appropriated by this House which is being spent. That is why one cannot have parliamentary control over it. I hope the hon. gentlemen who were guilty of such nonsensical arguments will now abandon them. The hon. member who has just spoken and who also introduced the debate from his side the other day, said that the United Party was in favour of homeland development but not of the methods which the Government were applying. Before I deal with the methods, I should just like to refer you to the radical difference between the purpose of homeland development as seen from the Opposition side and the purpose of the Government. The Government maintains that development of the homelands should be to the sole advantage of the inhabitants of the homelands. It is the standpoint of the Government that because they are homelands the homelands should be developed to the exclusive advantage of the Bantu. The Opposition maintains that they also want to develop the homelands, but their principle condition is that the homelands can and may only be developed if the development will mean that the areas will become an E1 Dorado for outside investors. That is their condition. There is therefore a tremendous difference between the aims of the Government and those of the Opposition. The Government maintains that it should also be possible for the inhabitants of the homelands to make contributions because what is taking place here is the upliftment and development of their geographical area, of their own homelands. Because they are resident there, all their institutions must develop and expand there, because these belong to them. On the other hand the United Party maintains that this is all very well but they do not want it, they will oppose it if the areas cannot be converted into an E1 Dorado for major capital investors.

Dr. G. F. JACOBS:

What did the Tomlinson Commission state?

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

I will not allow myself to be led astray by that nonsensical remark. I shall emphasize this point over and over again, i.e. that the slogan which the United Party is now making is that they want to develop the homelands, but that they should be pleasure gardens where financial demigods and exploiters can reign supreme. In this respect the United Party differs from the Government. The country must be carefully informed that this slogan of the United Party means that the Bantu homelands will not be homelands in the true sense of the word. It will not be possible for the Bantu to live happily in their own homelands. The United Party is desirous that the homelands should be an E1 Dorado, a rich and pleasant country where major capital investors can exploit the people. [Interjections.] Yes, the name they mentioned there is one of many. If that side were to have their way, not only the O.K. Bazaars, which they are so eager to admit there, will move into the homelands but many other undertakings will also exploit the homelands and undertake development only in order to skim off the cream for the outside investor while the Bantu will have to remain for ever subordinate and ultimately succumb economically because they are not receiving the cream but only the watered-down dregs. The major investors, the people for whom hon. members on the opposite side feel such concern, will skim off all the cream of the homelands.

*Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

The Hoggenheimers.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Yes, Hoggenheimers. After all, he is that side’s boss. He is the man who gave the United Party £4 million in 1953 with which to fight the election, and they still suffered a worse defeat than ever before. He is the United Party’s boss, he is the man for whom that side is really pleading. It is his condition, nobody else’s. Yes, Hoggenheimer is the man. When he was still in this House he stated from the opposite side that he had given the United Party £4 million. Of that amount £800,000 disappeared which that side could not account for. He said it there. I am saying it to the hon. member for Hillbrow so that he can remember it.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! Would the hon. member please return to the Bill? The hon. member must discuss the Bill.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Hon. members on the opposite side came forward with their motions …

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! It is the task of the Chair to stop them from doing so.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, but those hon. gentlemen introduced a motion here. What their motion really signifies is that that same man who gave them that £4 million must now be allowed into the Transkei. That is what their motion really amounts to. We know only too well what the true plan of that side is.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

May I ask the hon. member a question?

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

No, you have already spoken on many occasions and in any case I know that you want to ask a nonsensical question. I know the hon. member. He is full of nonsense this morning because he knows that his entire argument is nonsensical. Now he wants to come forward with nonsensical questions as well, and I simply do not have time for that now. The basic reason why the United Party is adopting this particular attitude is because they are still somewhat indebted to their boss who gave them £4 million in 1953. I think he informed them that he would now like some of his interests still due and that they should discuss the matter along these lines. After all, this is a rich and pleasant country, and once the Government has finished developing the infrastructure, the country will be nicely ready and he simply wants to walk in there to derive the benefit of this infrastructure.

Dr. G. F. JACOBS:

Where is this infrastructure.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

I cannot show the hon. member but the hon. member need only drive through there in his shiny motor car, he and the people who received that £4 million, and they will see what tremendous expenditure has already been incurred in developing the infrastructure in the Transkeian area as well as in other areas. The hon. members should go and have a look at the fine roads which have been constructed there. They must go and have a look at the dams and the water and all those developments. All these things have already been done, but the bosses of their menials on the opposite side would not have spent a penny of that £4 million on the infrastructure. That they would not have done. But now that the Government has done so much in that respect, they would also like to see the areas being developed. They are also saying that they would very much like to develop the areas, but they stipulate certain conditions. But this side will not concede those conditions. Our condition is homeland development to the advantage of the Bantu and not the advantage of those “boys” who received the £4 million in 1953. [Interjections.] The hon. member should not be uneasy now because that side, according to what the former member for Kimberley (City) said, cannot give an account of that £800,000. That side is preaching so many sermons, they are pleading so seriously, and it is time the people outside knew why they are acting in this way.

I now want to say a few things about the methods to which the hon. member is objecting so much. The hon. member complained that there was no work for Bantu in the homelands. What tasks are awaiting the investment corporations? Let me mention a few and then the hon. member must just try and reassert that these projects will not supply any work. Their task will be to inaugurate industrial, commercial, financial, mining and other businesses and undertakings. What person in his right mind will assert that these projects will not provide work on a considerable scale? This is the objective; this is one of the tasks which will have to be fulfilled there. What is also being envisaged is to lend assistance in inauguration and expansion to Bantu persons in the Bantu homelands. That side is objecting to this. It is one of the methods they do not like. They do not want the Bantu to be helped. No, an aldorado must be created there for white investors from outside the areas. That is the condition of the hon. gentleman on the opposite side. They do not want opportunities to be created for the Bantu there. They want white capital to be invested there so that they can go and erect their shops there and establish their exploitationist undertakings there. What is also being envisaged is to benefit and to develop projects. Will that not supply work? The hon. member who represents the Transkei in this House has stated that he is opposed to methods of that kind. This is one of the methods he is objecting to, and it is a method for which this Bill is making specific provision. Sir, that hon. member must not sit there and turn pale now. The Bill also makes provision for “capital provision and instruction”. That is for the Bantu, but the hon. member does not want it. They want white investors to have the opportunity of making large profits.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

But after all you were always a socialist.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

Another method for which this Bill is making provision is to purchase land and buildings, but the hon. gentleman is objecting to that as well.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Where did I say that?

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

The hon. member stated that he was opposed to the methods. Is that not one of the methods? [Interjections.] I think I am normal; I feel normal, but it seems to me the hon. member there is not normal. But I shall proceed. The hon. member stated that there was no work for the Bantu. Here the Bill is making specific provision for the training of the Bantu, but he is opposed to that. The Bill states explicitly that that will be one of the tasks of this corporation. The Bill is making provision for the provision of labour to the Bantu, but the hon. member is opposed to that. He must not distort his own words. He began his main attack —and this is how all the newspapers in South Africa reported him—by saying that he objected to the methods which are being applied; I am now quoting to him from the Bill what methods are going to be applied, and he has turned pale; he is disconcerted at his own words.

In terms of this Bill it will be possible to lend out money without security, but that the hon. member does not want. No, one must not lend money to the Bantu. No, only Hoggenheimer should have the right to invest money in the Bantu homelands.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

No, not Hoggenheimer —the Broederbond.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

The Bill is making specific provision for the Corporation to act as an agent. The hon. the Minister emphasized repeatedly under what conditions white capital could be invested in the homelands. It will be possible for the corporation to act as an agent here. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I should just like to know from you whether you gave me leave to speak, or someone else?

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

The hon. member may proceed.

*Mr. M. J. VAN DEN BERG:

You gave me leave to speak, Sir, but there is another hon. gentleman here who wants to take the words out of my mouth. In the days when I was “Speaker” I saw to it that only the man who had been given leave to speak, spoke and nobody else. The Bill is making specific provision that the corporation can act in a protective capacity in the interests of Bantu development, so that the development of the Bantu homelands will not be left to the mercy and the abuses of investors who are under no control. The hon. member is opposed to it being possible for the corporation to employ officials, but he is asking for land to be purchased for housing for them. He objected to the appointment of officials there, and this is one of the methods for which the Bill is making specific provision. He came forward here with the plea that houses should be built there. For whom must the houses be built? The white officials whom he does not want to see appointed there? He is against the methods, and this is one of the methods of developing the homelands. The Bill makes provision for the corporation to inaugurate, launch and plan any project which is conducive to the development of the Bantu homelands, but that the hon. member for Transkei does not want. No, the Transkei should only be developed in the interests of overseas and foreign capital investors.

Mr. Speaker, we come now to another matter in regard to which hon. members on that side also made a terrible blunder. They are always telling people outside that they are just as eager as we are to see the 1936 Act being implemented, and that they are just as proud as we are of that Act, but here the hon. member for Transkei, as well as the hon. member for South Coast, came forward and stated that it should be possible to purchase land in the Bantu homelands for Whites. If it is possible for one to purchase land in the Bantu homelands with a view to establishing Whites there, what is going to happen tomorrow or the day after; must one allow a major white complex to develop there again which will subsequently have to be bought out? I want to ask the Opposition whether it is political honesty to say that they adhere to the 1936 Act? Where can one find a more cunning method of disabling the 1936 Act than to go and make another act in which one makes provision for it being possible to purchase land for Whites in the Bantu homelands again? Sir, have you ever heard of a more cunning tactic in your entire life? Is it any wonder that South Africa sometimes has such a terribly bad name overseas? If South Africa is at this stage earning a bad name overseas then it is because those hon. members go overseas and announce their policy there. It is then interpreted as being the white policy of South Africa, for then the people overseas say: “You adopted an Act in 1936 in terms of which so much land would be placed at the disposal of the Bantu, and now you are buying that land up. What is now to become of the 1936 quota?” Sir, have you ever seen a more cunning method of blackening South Africa’s name overseas and of creating the wrong impression in the outside world? Since 1936 we have been purchasing one piece of land after another in order to make up the full quota of land for the Bantu. Here the United Party are coming forward to-day and they want us to pass an Act which will enable us to invest white capital in the Bantu areas again and to make white land tenure possible. Can you think of anything which would give South Africa a worse name than doing this? If we were to do this, people abroad would tell us: “You passed an Act in 1936 to purchase so much land for the Bantu; it was not the Bantu who made that Act; it was the white man who made it, and now when you have to implement that Act you are so dishonest that you are purchasing pieces of land for the Whites again.” [Interjections.] Sir, when hon. members of the Opposition have been exposed, they take refuge in this kind of tactic; they pretend to be sensitive in regard to this matter. Do you find it strange, Sir, that the public today has no confidence whatsoever left in the so-called attitude which is being adopted by the Opposition. They have been adopting this attitude on the Witwatersrand as well. There, too, they have pleaded time and again for the Bantu to be allowed to own land. The Opposition wants it to be possible for the white man to purchase land in the Bantu areas, and in turn it must be possible for the Bantu to purchase land in the white area. They want to make integration a reality in every possible sphere, territorial, political and industrial. In every possible way they are endeavouring to make integration a real policy in South Africa. But these things as well will be tested again from time to time. It will again be possible to test the will of the nation in this respect.

I therefore maintain that since the Government is coming forward with this measure today—if you look at the Minister’s speech— you will see that it contains volumes in regard to the prospects for tremendous developments which we foresee within a short period of time, so that a day will come when there will no longer be such an insistent nagging in regard to the rate of development in the homelands. This measure is making provision for efficient development, and not only for development, but for the protection of that development. To my mind it is of fundamental importance that we afford protection for that development, so that a process of integration will not in future take place, where Whites can purchase land in the Bantu areas and the Bantu in the White. Let me say that if the Opposition intends proceeding with their plea in allowing development in the homelands to take place only on condition that it can serve as an Eldorado and an area of exploitation for their investors, they will once more, as in the past, be rejected.

One last word about the hon. member for Houghton. If the insinuations in the Press reports are correct, then there are many signs that she intends joining the National Party. [Laughter.] I want to make the road easy for her. I want to mention the example of a great man, Churchill. When he was asked “But what did you say when you were a member of the Labour Party?” he replied: “Oh, I said many silly things when I was a member of the Labour Party, and I became tired of saying silly things and I decided to stop saying silly things.” Well then, if the hon. member wants me to make the road easy for her, I can only say to her: “Stop saying silly things and you will find the road quite easy and very broad.”

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

The hon. member for Krugersdorp has been providing us with pleasant entertainment for 25 minutes, but it was very difficult for me to make out what the content of his speech was. However, he tried to intimate that the attitude we on this side were adopting was to allow the Oppenheimers to enter the homeland areas and become exploiters there for their own advantage. But surely that is not true. Is it not true that the Government itself asked Mr. Oppenheimer to investigate the area near Mount Ayliff with regard to the mining industry? The Government issued that invitation itself, but now the hon. member is saying that it is the policy of the United Party which will lead to those people in the homelands being exploited.

The hon. member for Krugersdorp ought to realize that if there are industrialists and businessmen who are interested in the Bantu areas, they will not be confined to people who are against the Government. I want to refer the hon. member again to an article which appeared in Volkshandel. There they stated very explicitly, under the headline “White Capital and Initiative for the Bantu Homelands”, that (translation)—

The limited role which the Bantu Investment Corporation has been playing up to now proves that development cannot take place on an adequate scale. There is a major difference between the role which officials in the employ of the Bantu Investment Corporation can play, despite all the idealism —in comparison to what the white entrepreneur can play, because he is risking his capital and will therefore have to deploy his powers in order to protect and develop his interests.

These are the Afrikaans businessmen, members of the public who are supposed to be favourably disposed towards the Government’s attitude. They themselves state that the role the Bantu Investment Corporation can play is a limited one, but if one allows the Whites with their capital and initiative to enter, one will have expansion because they will have to protect their interests there. Is the hon. member for Krugersdorp also prepared to label those people as Oppenheimers? He stated that we are advocating this policy because we are indebted to the Oppenheimers to the tune of millions of rands; we owe them R8 million or R20 million, but I am now asking to what extent that Party is indebted to the Afrikaans Oppenheimers? Or are they stating this matter as they have stated it in the Volkshandel because they regard it to be in the interests of South Africa that the Bantu areas should be developed, as hon. members on this side also view the matter? But according to that hon. member, all who are sitting on this side and the businessmen and industrialists who support us are only prepared to enter that area because we want to have dividends and make profits, but we are not interested in what becomes of the Bantu. If one wants to support legislation such as this, as well as that which was piloted through this Parliament nine years ago—and in his reply to the second reading the hon. the Minister stated emphatically that there was nothing new in this Bill—against what background must we support it? After all, we must support it against the background of the success which hon. members on the opposite side have had with that legislation. But what success have they had? The hon. the Minister told us of the small measure of success they had had, the few contours, the few garages and the dams, etc., which they had constructed there and the businessmen and the technical staff which they had in due course obtained, but surely it means absolutely nothing. In 1959 the hon. the Minister—he was at that time not yet Minister— said in this House (Hansard, volume 99, column 692)—

This Bill is a showpiece which gives recognition to private enterprise, but to the private enterprise of the Bantu. The National Party recognizes that private enterprise is one of the most effective methods of developing the reserves, but it must be Bantu private enterprise, whereas the Opposition want to allow white private enterprise into the reserves, not to develop the Bantu, but to promote their white economic imperialistic interests.

Let us now see what the hon. the Minister and his Government have done in this regard during the past nine years. Is the hon. the Minister justified in asking us to support this legislation on the grounds of what they have achieved in this sphere during the past nine years? Where are the monuments they have erected in this sphere? Can they state that they have kept tens of thousands of Bantu in their homelands, that they have established scores of new industries, or that scores of business undertakings have been taken over by the Bantu? Can they boast of this? No. For ten years they have had the opportunity of utilizing the initiative of the Bantu to the benefit of the Bantu themselves, but with what results? Nothing to be proud of. And you must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. the Minister said in regard to this legislation that it really contained nothing new. Now this hon. Minister and the Government come along and inform us that the development of the Bantu homelands is for them a serious matter. Surely this does not tally with the facts. They have had the Magna Carta for the development of Bantu homelands in their hands for ten years and have accomplished nothing with it. Now they are asking us to support them! We cannot do so because they have achieved nothing over the past ten years. All that has happened is that an increasing number of Bantu are still making their way to the white homelands to find a livelihood there.

Let me refer the hon. the Minister to a speech made by Professor Page, professor of regional planning at the University of Stellenbosch. Last year in September he had the following to say at Clanwilliam in regard to border industries (translation)—

The border industries near Pretoria, Durban and East London are extremely successful points of growth. At present a local removal of factories from these cities is taking place, but it is clear that the underdeveloped areas, under which the Bantu homelands fall, will not benefit by this development.

In other words, the Bantu are not benefiting by the development in their homelands. How are they going to benefit now if the Minister only intends continuing in the same way they have done over the past ten years without their having achieved any appreciable results? Under the circumstances we on this side of the House do not have overmuch confidence in this legislation. It does not go far enough. Sir …

*Dr. C. P. MULDER:

… I do not know what more I can say!

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Because that hon. member is the chief information officer of the National Party, he need not think that he has a monopoly of knowledge. I maintain that this legislation is merely an attempt to placate supporters of that side of the House outside because they are impatient that such an extremely small measure of progress has been made in the homelands. Hence this legislation which is being held up to them as a new method of setting development in the Bantu homelands in motion. Those people outside are undoubtedly dissatisfied because development in the homelands is too slow. But this legislation will not satisfy them either; it will not bluff them. The Government has a number of problems in this regard. Only largescale development in the Bantu homelands will create enough suction power to draw the Bantu back to the Bantu areas from the white areas. We find it inexplicable that the Government has not yet allowed white capital into the homelands. Another problem is that generous utilization of the tax-payer’s money has never been a popular way of setting development in motion.

But I should like to know how development of some magnitude—and I emphasize magnitude—can take place with more Government officials? For if the Minister wants to put this legislation into effect it would require a tremendous Government Department, that is if he wants to bring about economic development of any magnitude in the Bantu homelands. We are entitled to ask this, particularly if we bear in mind what has been achieved, or rather, what has not been achieved, over the past nine years. All right-minded South Africans agree that there should be development in the homelands. But if this development has to take place merely as a result of an attempt by the State, it will never be achieved. The Minister does not have the necessary manpower, nor can he offer the necessary degree of competition to private initiative in order to find the right people and set large-scale developments in motion. We say that an attempt on the part of the State alone to set development in the Bantu homelands in motion will not succeed. On the contrary. The pressure on our white cities will become greater unless the Government is prepared to accept the motion made by this side of the House, that is, to allow white capital and initiative into those areas.

*The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the debate be now interrupted in order to afford the Deputy Minister of Finance an opportunity of making a statement.

Agreed to.

STATEMENT: CLOSING OF STOCK EXCHANGE The DEPUTY MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Hon. members will be aware of the uncertainty which exists in the financial markets of the world, leading, inter alia, to the closing of the London Stock Exchange to-day and to the prohibition of dealings in foreign exchange by British banks.

These events might cause great uncertainty and speculation in South Africa too. In order to avoid unnecessary disruption, the Government has decided that the Johannesburg Stock Exchange will be closed to-day. No stockbroker and no dealer in stocks and shares may to-day buy or sell or otherwise deal in any stocks or shares, whether on behalf of another person or not.

Furthermore, no bank or other authorized dealer in exchange may enter into or conclude any gold or foreign exchange transactions today or to-morrow.

The necessary proclamation will be published as soon as possible.

PROMOTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF BANTU HOMELANDS BILL (Third Reading resumed) *The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU DEVELOPMENT:

Mr. Speaker, if anything has once again been clearly revealed by the discussion of this Bill, it is the difference between the policy of the Government and that of the Opposition in regard to our Bantu affairs.

Just before the hon. member for Newton Park resumed his seat, he dropped this remark, i.e. that they cannot support the legislation and that it cannot succeed unless the Government accepts that white know-how and initiative should develop the homelands. In the course of this debate we have learned in various ways how that white capital, know-how and initiative should be applied in the homelands. I asked the hon. member for Transkei by way of an interjection—I hope he is not going far away, because in the course of my speech I should like to deal with him—how that white capital and initiative should be applied in the homelands. Should it be on a free basis, as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout intimated here? He then stated: “No, control.” I then asked him what control should then be exercised over white capital and know-how to which he replied that they should not own land. That is the only control which the hon. member is prescribing that his Party will exercise over the industrialist, the person undertaking mining ventures there, or businessmen of whatever kind. There will simply be no land tenure. For the rest capital investment there will be unrestricted.

*Dr. J. H. MOOLMAN:

No, no.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

It was also indicated here that the profits should all accrue to that investor. Now the hon. member for East London (City) is saying “No, no”. He can inform us later on as to the way in which they want to utilize the profits there, and what share the Bantu will have in those profits made within the homelands.

But, Sir, before I elaborate further on the difference in policy between the two parties, I would just like to deal with a few matters which the hon. member for Newton Park mentioned here. Inter alia, the hon. member stated here that if these measures which have been applied, i.e. the Act which established the Bantu Investment Corporation in 1959 and the Act which established the Development Corporation in 1965 were a success, the Minister should after ten years—it is not even ten years but we shall leave it at that—really have been able to display monuments of success. But there are monuments which can be displayed. But the United Party also governed, and for much longer. The hon. member for Transkei boasted here the other day of what methods they followed in developing the Bantu homelands. He mentioned here that they had even utilized the know-how and knowledge of overseas advisers, and that with these means, with that knowledge and advice, they would have continued developing the area. I do not want to do him an injustice. I wrote down his words here. He then said: “We failed, but our prognosis will prove true”. That is all they are able to show after all those years. They had one little monument, namely Good Hope Textiles at Zwelitsha near King William’s Town, and that was in a sad state of affairs when this Government took over and we continued with border industries on a sounder basis. No, Sir, if there are people who have failed to make a success of homeland development, then they are sitting on that side of the House, despite their policy of free white capital, know-how and initiative, in order to develop those homelands. Even if we were to comply with those conditions which the hon. member for Transkei laid down, i.e. that there should be no land tenure, what assurance do we have that the Bantu there are going to derive any benefit other than that they will become the employees of those who are going to invest their capital there? According to what we have heard from the United Party in the debates over the past few days, we have had to infer that it is their standpoint that the industrialist or the investor should also go and invest there on a free basis, the only exception being that they may not own land. Then the profit is all theirs. I say that, if there is a discussion which revealed the difference between the policies of the two parties, then it has been the discussion of this Bill up to its third reading.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. Deputy Minister a question: If the Government has applied its policy and it has shown no results, is it not time it amended its policy?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

But, Sir, that is what I was explaining to the hon. member and the Opposition, i.e. that the policy which has been applied, has achieved successes and that by means of this legislation we are building on this in order to increase the successes. I also pointed out that the policy which hon. members advocate has already been applied and that its lack of success has been proved time and again. Hon. members on the opposite side have, after all, admitted that lack of success. How can the hon. member ask me this question now, i.e. what proof is there of the success that has been achieved? If ever it was proved that the policy of the United Party had failed, including the policy which they are now advocating for the development of the Bantu homelands, then that proof was furnished up to and including 1948 during the period in which their policy was being applied.

I would still like to make this remark for the benefit of the hon. member for Newton Park. The hon. member should not always want to belittle what has been done in the Bantu homelands. There is not one of us on this side of the House who would say—and I want to use the following words with the consent of the hon. member for Krugersdorp—that Eldorado’s have been established there. But to say each time: “You can only show a few dams, only a few grass strips, a few grazing camps, only one little factory here and there” is being nothing else but derogatory. No, Sir, great progress has already been made with the development of the homelands. But the progress will have to be even greater and the rate will have to be accelerated. That is what we propose. The rate will also be accelerated by means of this legislation which is now before this House. It is for that purpose that this legislation was introduced, i.e. to accelerate the rate, to establish more corporations. Hon. members must not ask us here to amend the legislation because the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation and corporations in other homelands have been a failure. If they have been a failure, why should we then, through this legislation, retain the implications of those two Acts which created the Bantu corporations? Why are we retaining the Xhosa Development Corporation? Why is it making provision for the creation of additional development corporations for other ethnic units? No, Sir, the proof of the successes which have already been achieved by former legislation and through these existing corporations are embodied in this legislation because these corporations are being retained. The hon. member quoted here that somebody is alleged to have said that homelands are deriving no benefit from the development which is taking place on the borders as a result of the establishment of border industries. The hon. member can quote that statement of the learned man, but I think the results prove just the opposite. The Bantu who are earning their money on the border are also benefiting the Bantu in the heart of the homelands. With this legislation we are not discussing the benefits of border industries. This legislation now before the House is aimed at promoting development within the homelands themselves. The hon. member is accepting in advance that the Government will fail because of the lack of necessary man-power. He stated that the developments which will have to take place will have to be done by officials only. It is correct that officials of the B.I.C. and of the various development corporations for the various nations will be utilized. There will also be officials of the corporations to be established. However, there will also be experts in this field, i.e. directors of the B.I.C., the boards, as well as the advisory boards, who will gradually be trained to acquire knowledge. Those peoples’ knowledge will be put to use. The hon. member came to a different conclusion simply because those peoples’ knowledge will be put to use. I do not know whether the hon. member’s facts are correct, but he implied that it was this side of the House which had wanted to benefit Mr. Oppenheimer and had invited him to do certain things.

Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Oppenheimer was employed at Insizwa, as the Minister will tell you.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Well, we believe Mr. Oppenheimer has a sound knowledge of mining matters in particular, and it is very typical of this Government to make use of Mr. Oppenheimer’s knowledge, know-how and initiative. He will be the type of man, together with other people who also have that knowledge, who will be able to serve on a board and will be able to give instruction and convey the technical knowledge they have to benefit the development of the Bantu homelands. It will take place on that basis. The difference between our policy and the policy of that side has been emphasized here repeatedly.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to drag in the name of a very important industrialist here across the floor of this House. I am not doing so because I have no respect for him. In fact, I have the greatest respect for his knowledge and know-how in this field. I am using his name because the hon. member has already, in his speech, dragged his name into this debate.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

It was in reply to what an hon. member on the Government side had said.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I do not want to belittle the gentleman in any way. I only want to point out that people who have the necessary knowledge can be utilized in our development programme for the Bantu homelands. The difference between our approach and that of the opposite side is that the Opposition want to give those people vested rights in the homelands, rights which the Bantu will not be able to utilize, rights which will ultimately have to be acquired again on behalf of the Bantu.

I do not want to go into the same aspect which the hon. member for Krugersdorp dealt with. However, I want to point out that as regards our policy we agree that white capital and white know-how must be utilized and harnessed in order to develop the Bantu homelands. However, it must take place to the advantage of the Bantu themselves. No vested white interests must be allowed into the homelands. For the same reason it is our policy that the Bantu should have no vested interests in the white homelands.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

How are you going to use the capital of the Whites in the homelands?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

At least let me finish this argument: I shall then reply to the hon. member. The United Party’s standpoint is that the capital of the Whites must be invested to the benefit of the Whites. It must be invested in the homelands to the benefit and profit of the Whites. In the same breath that side maintains that the Bantu should also have the right to enjoy proprietary rights in the white areas. They must be allowed to have businesses here. They must be allowed to have vested interests here. That is why I say that the debate on this legislation has indicated once again how far the two parties differ in respect of their approach to the development of the Bantu. This side repeatedly emphasized separate development, a process which is conducive to increasing separation. On the other hand it has become clear that the Opposition standpoint amounts to this: They desire less separation and more common interests, which will end in integration. Certain hon. members on the opposite side became hot under the collar the other day when we said that their policy implied integration. I do not to-day want to state that the United Party policy is one of integration, if they do not like that. But the system they want to harness in order to develop the Bantu homelands can only result in an increase in integration between the various Coloured groups.

*Mr. J. D. DU P. BASSON:

We are dealing here with the Bantu areas, and not with the white areas.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I have in fact pointed out the difference between this side and that side as regards the approach to development in the Bantu areas. I also pointed out the difference in our approach as regards rights which Bantu in the white areas should or should not obtain. I do not think the hon. member followed my entire argument; otherwise he would certainly not have made that interjection. Perhaps the hon. member was a little late in coming into this House.

I want to return to a few remarks made here by the hon. member for Transkei. He referred to the hon. the Minister’s speech where the Minister stated that the development must keep pace with human development. The Minister also said that agricultural development is one of the first stages, not only of the development of the homelands, but also of human development. When that was said hon. members on this side said “Oh, that is all nonsense —do the job”. They say the work must be proceeded with, factories must be established, the mines must produce, development in the agricultural sphere must take place, irrigation dams must be built, fencing must be put up, camps must be made, irrigation schemes must be laid out, etc. Greater intellects than those sitting on the opposite side have pointed out that development will mean absolutely nothing if it does not keep pace with human development as well. I want to quote something I mentioned last Friday morning in the Other Place. I was then quoting from a report drawn up by Professor Van Wyk of the Fore Hare University College, when he went to institute an investigation into agricultural development, at the request of the Lesotho Government. That learned professor reaffirmed in his introductory remarks that development is a hopeless failure if it does not keep pace with human development, i.e. if men cannot absorb it. Sir, if there is any party that ought to know how essential it is that development should keep pace with human development, then it ought to be the Party sitting on the Opposition side. Surely they know that they achieved no success with their planning. They know that their officials did not always have the right to explain to people how essential it was to build a dipping trough, and where a dipping trough had in fact been built, it was often destroyed.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

You are talking nonsense now.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

No, I am not talking nonsense. It has been proved that wherever human development does not keep pace with his physical development, it has been a failure. This professor and others have repeatedly pointed out that human development must keep pace with physical development, otherwise that physical development goes by the board. The hon. member stated here that there was no possibility for agricultural development as long as the present system of land tenure continued. The system of land tenure among the Bantu, as the hon. member knows as well as I do, differs from one tribe to another and from one nation to another and from one place to another, but in the majority of cases land tenure is communal. I do not think the Bantu are very keen to renounce that system of communal land tenure, but the Bantu are in fact inclined to accept planning. I want to admit candidly here that it is not always so easy to get them to accept planning, but progress is being made there as well, so much so that practically half of the Bantu area has already been planned. That planning entails that a limited number of people will remain in a specific area, even though the system is one of tribal ownership. Only a limited number of tribal members remain on the land and the others go to the border industries which we have already created and to the homeland industries which are to be created and to businesses such as those the hon. the Minister mentioned in his speech.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Where are they in the Transkei?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

That hon. member ought to know.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

ENQUIRY INTO LAWS AFFECTING AFRICANS IN URBAN AREAS Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I wish to move the motion as printed in my name—

That this House is of the opinion that the Government should consider the advisibility of appointing a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate and report upon the effects of laws specifically affecting Africans resident in the urban areas, with special reference to—
  1. (1) disintegration of family life;
  2. (2) increase in crime;
  3. (3) restrictions on economic opportunity;and
  4. (4) inadequate provision for education.

Mr. Speaker, you will realize that this is an enormous subject which I am going to attempt to cover in a very short time. I have here a volume of Butterworth’s “Consolidated Legislation”, I have received several of these volumes since they were issued, and this is the only one which has one subject-title only. It is entitled very simply, “Bantu”. Every other volume that I have received covers anything from six to 12 subjects. The African has been so specially selected for legislation by this House that this entire volume of laws is concentrated on the Bantu only. If one adds to this volume all our common law, which also, of course, applies to Africans, and all the other statutory laws which also all apply to Africans, with the exception, of course, of the laws which apply specifically to Coloureds and Indians only, one can well realize that the South African African is probably the most legislated-against creature in the world to-day.

The MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND DEVELOPMENT:

But there are many more Acts in connection with the Whites—in fact too many to incorporate them in one volume.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

All statutory law applies to Africans, such as all our criminal law and also all the common law. The Government, however, is undeterred by the fact that already there is a vast volume of law on the Statute Book controlling every facet of life of the African from the day he is born till the day he dies—where he may live, how he may live, his mobility, and what job he may take, etc. But undeterred by this, every single session the Government introduces more laws, and by means of administrative directives and ministerial chits which are sent round the country, more and more control is constantly being imposed on every aspect of the life of the African. Sir, I believe it is high time that we called a halt to this spate of legislation, that we took stock of the existing position and that we appointed an objective, judicial commission of inquiry to go into every aspect of law as it at present affects the lives of the people concerned, laws about which, I might add, they themselves had no say, laws about which they were not consulted and laws which are being imposed upon them entirely by this white Parliament of South Africa. I think it is time we examined the effects of these laws on human beings, on the economy of South Africa, and on society as a whole.

It is over 20 years since we had the last proper judicial commission of inquiry into laws affecting particularly the urban African. That inquiry was conducted by the Fagan Commission, which was appointed in 1946 and which reported in 1948. It is interesting that even then, 20 years ago, the Fagan Commission came to the conclusion that there is an indestructible tie between the black man and the white man of South Africa. They summed up the situation very crisply by saying: They need us and we need them. Twenty years ago the Fagan Commission recognized that it was absolute folly and that it was flying in the face of reality to ignore the fact that there was already a large permanently urbanized African labour force settled in our cities and, to all intents and purposes, determined to stay there all their lives. In those days already the Fagan Commission came out with the strongest possible condemnation of the effects of the migratory labour system on the family life of Africans, and it quoted with approval the words of the Social and Economic Planning Council (report No. 9) which was under the chairmanship of Dr. van Eck. It quoted with approval the words of that council which said—

From the long-term point of view the council regards the system of migratory labour as morally, socially and economically wrong and it looks forward to its ultimate disappearance.

In other words, the Fagan Commission regarded as no longer feasible and indeed utterly undesirable the legislation which had already been passed affecting Africans and which was based on the recommendations of the Stallard Commission, which reported in 1922. Sir, this the Fagan Report said 20 years ago. The Stallard Commission enunciated the principle that the African should be allowed in the white towns only as long as his labour was required by the white man and that he should depart therefrom when he was no longer required to minister to the wants of the white man. And it was on the recommendations of that commission that all subsequent urban legislation was based. I think it is ironical that to-day, 20 years after the Fagan Commission reported, with all the enormous post-war industrialization that has taken place in South Africa over those 20 years, with the visible growth of vast urban African townships containing hundreds of thousands of African families, permanently settled, and with hundreds of thousands of children born in those urban areas, the Government is to-day set on steering the whole direction of policy affecting urban Africans back to a policy which in fact failed 45 years ago in the days of the Stallard Commission, which made its recommendations for conditions which were vastly different from the conditions which obtain today. In a fortnight’s time, on the 1st April, to be exact, drastically far-reaching regulations will be gazetted concerning the compulsory registration of every single male African between the ages of 15 and 65 in the Bantu areas and concerning every female African work-seeker living in those areas. Those people are going to have to register compulsorily, and when they are recruited the tribal authority is going to be rewarded with a fee of R1 per head, and thereafter all this labour is going to be regulated entirely on a migratory basis. In other words, the migration of labour is the policy of this Government and all future labour coming into the urban areas is going to be on this migratory basis. The African is going to be converted into an economic labour unit, nothing more and nothing less. The whole future of industrial labour in this country—not just mining labour as we have known it in the past and not just a portion of industrial labour as we have known it in the past—is going to be based on migratory labour. Sir, we often hear the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration saying: “This system has worked on the mines; why can’t it work here?” And we have heard the Minister of Bantu Administration saying, “It is no different from what happens in Lesotho, in Swaziland and Malawi; they all rely on migratory labour”. May I point out to the hon. the Minister that there is a complete conflict between saying this and saying what he said in this House only a day or two ago when he assured us that despite everything that was going on in the homelands, the South African reserve African is still regarded as a South African citizen. Thus he is entirely different from the African who comes from Lesotho or Swaziland or Botswana or Malawi or anywhere else in Africa for that matter. He is a citizen of this country and as such he should surely be allowed the most elementary right of a citizen of this country and that is the right of mobility and the right to sell his labour in the best possible market. So I discard that argument advanced by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development entirely.

I will return to the situation on the mines in a moment, but I want to say at once that the migratory labour system is never a desirable system. It is always a symptom of poverty, of under-developed areas where people are forced to leave those areas in order to seek a better livelihood elsewhere. This is not the desirable system that we should be seeking. It is an undesirable system which we should be seeking to counter, for very good sociological reasons which I shall mention in a moment. I say that the system is always bad because it is a symptom of poverty, even when people voluntarily leave those areas, such as the workers in Europe. Even then I might point out that the migratory workers of Europe, the people from Italy who go and work somewhere else, are all being legislated for in an entirely different way by the Treaty of Rome, which by 1970 is going to change the whole basis of migratory labour in Europe into a much more permanent labour force, allowing them, for instance, to take their families with them and to settle in the new countries if they wish to. I say it is a bad thing when it is a voluntary system, but it is a highly objectionable system when it is actually forced on workers, as we are going to do in this country, and I believe that it is utterly deplorable when it is deliberately used to disrupt labour that is already stabilized; and this, too, is precisely what the Government intends to do. Not only is the Government going to make it impossible for any further permanent migration of labour to take place from the rural areas to the urban areas, which is a natural concomitant in every single industrializing country. Not only is the Government going to stop that, but it is also, according to every policy statement that I have heard or read over the past two or three years by the Minister or the Deputy Minister, now going to embark on a definite assault on the rights of Africans who are to all intents and purposes already permanently settled in the urban areas. This is being done by means of directives and by means of whittling away the rights which these people enjoy. It will turn them into an insecure and rootless community, with absolutely no entitlement to normal family life, no incentive to plan for the future, and no security in the present. There are two cornerstones, or there have been up to now, to which a privileged section of the African urban community could cling, and they are being undermined. The one was the right to own or occupy 30-year leasehold houses, and the other was the special right conferred by section 10 of the Bantu Urban Areas Act. Both these are being undermined. Already the Government has announced that it is going to do away with all further 30-year leasehold schemes, and I say that of all the mean actions of this Government—and there have been many mean actions of this Government—the ban on any further home ownership for urban Africans is, I think, one of the worst. I also think that it is one of the most criminally stupid actions, because it strikes at the middle class, stable, responsible, thrifty elements among the urban Africans, and the middle-class bulwark against Communism, about which we hear so much in this House. All the freehold property rights which formerly could have been enjoyed—and there were not many —by Africans in Alexandra Township, Sophiatown or Lady Selborne, have long since gone under this Government. All that has remained is the right to build or to buy houses on 30-year leasehold, and in such homes the professional class, the middle class, the semiskilled Africans invested their savings and their aspirations; that is the important thing. In Soweto there are already some 8,000 homes owned by Africans on the 30-year basis. The Minister said they would remain undisturbed in their ownership, until further notice. What that means is anybody’s guess in these days of broken assurances by the Government. In any case those owners have already lost the right to bequeath their homes to their children and they are not allowed to sell those homes to anybody other than the local authority. So that all the fine words we have heard in this House about building up communities and a community spirit among the different race groups are absolute hypocrisy in the face of this devastating assault on home ownership.

I must say that utterly cynical, too, are the words uttered by the hon. the Prime Minister in Windhoek last year—and they clearly apply to white people only—when he said—

I want to say this to the world. You can push people around and you can fight them and you can insult them and they will take all this up to a certain point, but you must not try to take a man’s home from him.

Well, this applies to the white man only. Also, one would have thought that it would have been a foregone conclusion in this Christian country that you do not try to take a man’s wife and his family away from him. But here, too, the axiom applies to white men only. Every year, through legislation or ministerial chit, it is becoming increasingly more difficult for the African to maintain any form of normal family life. All are to be temporary sojourners, who are here only as long as their labour is required by the white man, and in every urban area in South Africa countless African men and women are living in constant fear of having their married lives disrupted. The position of women, I might add, is particularly precarious. They are having all their rights whittled away. Their qualifications are being undermined all the time and, what is more, no women can be placed on the waiting-list for accommodation in the future. Already thousands of women and children have been endorsed out of the cities, some to the Native Reserves and some to spend their lives rotting away in resettlement areas like Sada. They are the victims of influx control; they have nowhere else to go. They do not belong in the ordinary Reserves, and have to go to these settlements. There go the pensioners whose working days are over. There goes the widow whose house has been taken away from her, and there go all the wives and children who do not qualify to stay with their husbands under this constant assault on the rights which have existed up to now under section 10.

There is no work in these miserable areas, but there is plenty of poverty and despair. Already in Langa where the menfolk are left behind, and in other towns, there are thousands upon thousands of so-called “bachelors” living in so-called bungalows which are really dormitories or compounds, as they were called in the olden days. Some live 40 to a room, where they eat and sleep. In Langa 26,000 of these so-called “bachelors” are housed in these quarters; 68 per cent of them were married men at the last count, and all of a sudden it is impossible to obtain these statistics. More and more I find that statistics are not available, and of course they are not available because of the sorry story they tell, which is something which the Government does not care to make public. These married men are away from their wives for at least a year at a time. Is it any wonder that the illegitimacy rate in Langa is between 25 per cent and 40 per cent, according to sociologists, and about 33 per cent in Soweto. Sir, we have a select committee of this House sitting right now on a very peculiar little Bill which deals with homosexuality among consenting adults, and it gets curiouser and curiouser when one remembers that the very labour system that the hon. the Minister is going to introduce is the strongest possible incentive towards homosexuality. If one reads the report of the Economic and Social Planning Council, one sees that it said in Report No. 9 many years ago that there was widespread prostitution and marriage instability, adult crime and juvenile delinquency, and that venereal disease and sexual perversion are among the effects of the migratory system, and they are aggravated by the abnormal sex ratio in the rural and urban areas.

The African male to female ratio in the urban areas has already risen to a dangerously high level in our cities. In Langa, I understand, it is already 10 to 1, and it is going to rise to an even higher disproportion as the new system is imposed and as more women and children are endorsed out. One does not need to be a trained sociologist to know about the correlation between crime and poverty and the correlation between crime and broken families. I say that our urban townships already provide an absolutely textbook case illustrating the effects of this correlation. In Soweto alone, 1,000 murders per annum are committed. Throughout South Africa 3,000 murders per annum are committed, and much of this crime occurs in the urban townships. Law-abiding Africans are terrified to go out at night. Indeed, they are assaulted and robbed in broad daylight. Juvenile delinquency has increased every year. There is no compulsory schooling and often no parental control. There is no security and a lack of opportunity to obtain well-paid work. It is no wonder that there is so much crime in these urban townships.

According to the UN. Demographic Year Book for 1961, we have the fourth highest homicide rate in the whole world, only exceeded by countries like Colombia, Mexico and Nicaragua. Our non-White prisons are bursting at the seams, unfortunately not only with hardened criminals whom everybody in society, Black or White, wants to see locked up there, but mostly with statutory pass law offenders, to whom the police devote so much of their attention. The mass raids that take place result in hundreds of people being arrested, only a few of whom are the hardened criminals who should be locked up. Into the police vans go the pass offenders, the men and women whose crime it is that they are seeking work in the urban areas without permission, or that they have not a permit to be in the urban area or have forgotten to carry their registration books on them. In Johannesburg alone, 36,000 Africans were prosecuted in one year for contraventions of influx control and pass laws and trespass. In October 1967, 1,000 pass offenders were convicted in Port Elizabeth, and 21,500 men and women appeared in 1967 in the Bantu Commissioners’ Courts in Observatory in Cape Town. In one year over ½ million prosecutions took place in South Africa for the transgression of laws which apply solely to Africans, curfew infringements, poll tax evasions and influx control. Sir, what a great waste of manpower, and what an absolutely ludicrous way of manufacturing gaolbirds, and yet that is what we are doing in South Africa.

I could say a great deal about the Government’s policy of not providing sufficient schools in the urban areas, which is a contributory factor towards juvenile delinquency. We all know that it is Government policy now that secondary and high schools shall be built in the rural areas and that vocational training schools shall also be built in the rural areas. That means, of course, that thousands upon thousands of children in the urban townships are turned away from school every year. We do not build enough primary schools and of course even fewer secondary schools. Of course it is on secondary education that we should be concentrating if we want to develop the African population and certainly if we want to start developing the Bantustans with their own professional and trained people. This building of schools outside the urban areas is done for a good purpose, according to the Government. It is done to lure the children away from the urban areas and make them what is known as “homeland-orientated”, hoping that they will not come back and, I might say, putting every difficulty in the way of their returning, to the urban areas. Equally I could spend a great deal of time going into details in regard to the economic effect of the Government’s policy. I shall simply say that so much has been written on this, reams and reams of it, that it is obvious that the migratory system is costly and wasteful and results in a high labour turnover, which in itself reduces efficiency, and of course it leads to the inability to train people to take skilled jobs.

Believe me, we need skilled people, because advances in industrial technology require higher-trained and more skilled men and not fewer skilled men. This of course is one reason why a system which may have sufficed— and I put it no higher than that—for the mining industry is not suitable for the manufacturing industry. In the mining industry there is sharp differentiation between unskilled and skilled work, and there is not the tremendous ladder of semi-skilled machine operatives’ jobs which makes trained labour so urgently required in the manufacturing industry. Therefore what suffices in the mines, economically, does not suffice in the manufacturing industries. Prof. Hobart Houghton has summed up the whole of this migratory system most eloquently when he describes it as a system which means that “two million men are perpetually on the move, men of two worlds lacking the feeling of belonging anywhere”.

Now a great deal of what I have said is not new. It has been said by others before me and it will certainly be said again by others after me. It has been said to no avail.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

There are many people who hate this country just as much as you do.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

No, I do not hate this country; I hate the Government’s policy and I make no bones about that. I think it is a dangerous and represensible policy which leads to misery, crime, poverty and to all sorts of social evils. I hate the Government’s policy, but I do not hate this country. On the contrary, I love this country. If what sociologists, educationists, economists and politicians say carries no weight with the Government, it just may be that the growing uneasiness in church circles may have some influence on the Government. Perhaps something of what the churches are saying these days to indicate the growing uneasiness of all the churches about the migratory labour system might have some effect on the Government. [Interjections.] The Cape Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church made the strongest possible condemnation of the migratory labour system in 1966.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

You are wrong.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I am not wrong. I have their exact words here. They spoke about the cancer which rages in the lives of the African population and they called for a thorough investigation to be made. That was adopted by the General Assembly of the Dutch Reformed Church. Dr. Badenhorst, the Mission Secretary of the Transvaal Synod of the D.R. Church, said much the same in November, 1967. What was said two years ago applies with even greater force to-day.

If ever there was a matter, said Dr. Badenhorst, about which a Government commission of inquiry should be set up, it is the family life of the African. The Methodist Church at its conference during 1967 asked the Government to investigate the effects of the Urban Areas Act on African family life. The Johannesburg diocese of the Anglican Church last October adopted a most strongly worded resolution condemning laws and administrative action which, in pursuance of the Government’s policy of apartheid, prevent or militate against the continual relationship of marriage and stable family life of the African. The Christian Council, to which most churches are affiliated—except the Dutch Reformed Church —has called another conference on this question of the family life of the African. The conference of the Catholic Bishops has declared that the erosion of African family life was a matter of growing concern. But also the officials, apart from the churches, who have to administer these laws are showing a growing concern over the laws and regulations about the employment and movement of Africans in the urban areas and are calling for a greater degree of flexibility as well as for fewer laws.

The retiring president of the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs, Mr. T. W. A. Koller, in his address to a conference of the Institute last November said—

With the greatest respect to those people in Pretoria who draft laws …

He might as well have added “and those people in Cape Town who pass laws”—

… to meet situations which have arisen in urban areas, one cannot help but feel sometimes that they have no personal knowledge or experience of urban administration or of the hardships and bitterness which sometimes flow from the legislation which they have drafted, much of which could have been avoided had the urban administrator been given the discretion to deal with the problem in his own way.

He suggested that—

It would be better, wherever possible, to discuss with managers or directors responsible for the administration of urban non-European affairs, extracts of the policy which requires “adjustment” and to give these responsible officials the right to exercise their discretion in carrying out these adjustments within the framework of the basic policy, rather than to bind them with legislative enactments and regulations.

He suggested the formation of a small permanent advisory committee, a committee which the Government could consult before any further laws were introduced. A couple of weeks ago in this House the hon. member for Brakpan complained bitterly that municipal officials were virtually sabotaging the Government’s policy in regard to the urban Africans and he launched the strongest attack against those officials who were not carrying out the Government’s policy. But, apparently, the hon. member does not realize how difficult it is to implement this policy, how impossible it is, as a matter of fact, of implementation. For one thing, it goes against all economic laws. When people are starving in the reserves or being paid a mere pittance on white farms it is natural for them to come to the urban areas to look for work. If the Government wants its system to work it would have to have one policeman for every African in the country and gaols with elastic walls. The Government’s policy is impossible to implement. It is not a matter of the urban authorities deliberately flouting the Government, however much they may disapprove of the Government’s policy. It is a matter rather that the Government who passes these laws and sends administrative chits around the country, does not have the faintest idea of what it is like to deal with the results of these laws and administrative chits.

I now have to quote the golden words of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. At that same conference of administrators of non-European Affairs he said it was the Government’s “holy conviction” that it was moving along the right road. Well, Sir, I am looking in vain for the halo around this gentleman’s head. But I want to tell him that once again I disagree with him profoundly. I believe there is nothing holy in the Government’s policy in regard to the urban African. Basically it is an unholy policy; a dangerous policy. The hon. the Deputy Minister ought to know what happens when poverty and broken up family life occur on a large scale in cities. He should look at America as an example. The hon. the Deputy Minister apparently thinks that the introduction of civil rights there led to the crisis. But let me tell him that every commission in America which investigated these urban crises, as well as every trained sociologist and economist who have gone into this matter, have come to the conclusion that it is poverty and broken family life that have caused this tremendous unrest in America.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

But they have riots there while we have none.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

That is so because you keep the Africans down by sheer force. We have law and order in this country but at a cost—the cost of oppression.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

You have lost your influence with the Bantu. That is the trouble with you. They take no notice of you any longer.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I should like to see a little more of democracy in this country and a little less suppression. I should like to see a little more attention to the underlying problems causing unrest, instead of just more punishment and more policemen. That is not the way in which to handle this problem on a long-term basis. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister as well as the Minister— whose new regulations are to come into force on the 1st April—that it is a shameless exploitation of the African to regard him only as a labour unit and to exclude all his other human aspirations. The hon. the Deputy Minister at the conference to which I have already referred said that the Africans’ stay in the urban areas was to be regarded only as a phase of their life. They only earned their income there. Can you imagine it, Sir! The African spends his entire working life in the white areas and yet the hon. the Deputy Minister says he “only” earns his income there. The hon. the Deputy Minister does not want him to have any aspirations to enjoy a family life, to security or to spend his old age amongst his friends. That does not count with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I say this system is thoroughly cruel. It leads to misery, poverty, juvenile delinquency and groaning gaols. What is worrying me most is that it is going to leave in its trail a heritage of hatred, of bitterness and ultimately of violence.

For all these reasons I call upon the Government to call a halt to this spate of legislation and the additional burdens they are constantly laying on the urban African population as well as on the rural Africans—because the two go together—and to appoint a judicial commission of inquiry to make a thorough research into all the factors I have discussed this morning.

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

All that dropped from the lips of the hon. member for Houghton was vinegar mingled with gall and not a drop of honey. Hardly ever have we had to listen to something like that in this House. She adopted a one-sided and unfounded attitude. We have great respect for the hon. member as a person, but her policy and that of her party carries the germ of death for South Africa. There is no justification for her policy in this country and the sooner she disappears from the scene, the better it will be not only for the Whites, but also for the non-Whites. All she does is to sow suspicion and to create false hopes without contributing anything constructive by way of a solution to this very difficult problem. I strongly want to urge the hon. the Minister to reject this motion of hers with the contempt it deserves.

She painted a picture of the desperate conditions under which the non-Whites in South Africa were allegedly living. She painted a picture of famine which was prevailing. I challenge her to say where there is famine in the Republic of South Africa.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

You make me laugh.

*Maj. J. E. LINDSAY:

Come and see what it looks like in the Ciskei.

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

I challenge that hon. member as well to prove that. The hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself and the hon. member for Houghton ought to be ashamed of herself for having alleged here that famine was prevailing in the country and that nothing was being done about it. [Interjections.] It was shameful of the hon. member to have tried to paint such a picture, such a one-sided picture. I want to tell her that as far as the economy of the Bantu is concerned, things are going very well with them. Here I am going to refer to what was said by somebody for whom they have great respect, and that is nobody but Mr. Carr. He made a statement as was reported in The Sunday Times of 11.4.1965. If one looks at the tremendous economic revival there has been since 1965, the conditions of the Bantu must be better to-day than they were at that time. This is what he said—

Every African worker within the city of Johannesburg is now able to find a job for what is believed to be the first time in its history. The Johannesburg African labour force is in a state of full employment and is almost certain to remain so for a long time.
Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

What has that got to do with the reserves?

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

If the hon. member had taken the trouble to go and see what was being done for the Bantu in the Bantu homelands, she would have painted a different picture here to-day. She must go and have a look at what the Government is doing there to raise the Bantu from the poverty which existed there; then she would not have spoken as she did to-day. Now I want to ask the hon. member: Where in the wide world is there another government that has placed legislation on the Statute Book for developing the under-developed areas, the so-called “depressed areas” by pumping white capital into them and by employing white skill to the benefit of the population?

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Where?

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

In the Transkei. Go and see what is happening in the Transkei. The hon. member is another angel of death—he flits about like a black fly in this House. That is what is wrong with the hon. member for Transkei. He lives there but he is blind and cannot see what is happening there. The hon. member once spoke of “three blind mice”, but he is the blindest mouse in this House. We are sick and tired now of the stories we hear here. We are sick of them. Every stroke of work the Government has done for raising the Bantu is being belittled. Now I challenge the opposite side to deny that they will be the first ones to brand us in Pretoria West as negrophilists because of what we are doing. They will say we are doing too much for the Bantu in the Republic. [Interjections.] Yes, those hon. members will do so. Look at the pamphlets the United Party is issuing there now. Every word spoken by me here to-day and every word which the hon. the Minister is going to speak, will be used against the Government in Pretoria West. Then the United Party will say, “Look what they are doing for the Blacks”. Who is going to spread that story? The United Party that is sitting over there in great expectation. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that what she said here to-day, was shameful. She wanted to make out that the system of migratory labour was the cause of the trouble. The hon. member is so concerned about the question of migratory labour. But are all of us who are sitting in this Parliament to-day not migratory labourers too? Is the hon. member not a migratory labourer too? Is she too not absent from her home for six months? [Interjections.] The hon. member is only concerned about the non-Whites.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

May I put a question to the hon. member?

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

No. If the hon. member gives me five minutes more I shall give him an opportunity of doing so.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Have you brought your wife and children with you?

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

No, my children are not with me; my children are at school elsewhere.

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

And your wife?

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

My wife is with me in Cape Town. But the wives of how many hon. members are not here in the Cape because of circumstances? Ask the hon. members sitting in my vicinity. Ask the hon. member for Houghton where her husband is. [Interjections.] The hon. members opposite have such a great deal to say about the system of migratory labour and they are so concerned about the non-Whites. What about our construction workers in the Republic?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

But they choose to do that.

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

Do they choose to do that? No, it is not a question of their choosing to do that. If work has to be done somewhere else, he has to go there. We who represent constituencies of workers can give the hon. member interesting details. How many of our white workers are not absent from their homes for many months because they have to go and work somewhere else? What about our road workers? What about the men who build roads? What about our railway workers?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

It is all temporary.

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

The migratory labourers are temporary too. I should like to say the following in connection with the system of migratory labour. As I was saying, in this regard there is a world of difference between this side and that. We believe the Bantu eventually has to find his good in his homeland. Our economy is going to be built on a system of migratory labour in the future. Therefore I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. Seeing that we have to develop this system of migratory labour, I want to suggest more frequent return visits to his homeland for the Bantu who has to come from his homeland to work in our cities. We must arrange matters in such a way that he will have the opportunity of visiting his homeland, say, every three months. This does not simply mean that he must now have an easy life. While he may now be working eight hours per day, for example, he will have to work, say, nine or nine and a half hours per day so as to enable him, by making up for the time he will be on holiday, to have time off to visit his homeland after, say, three months. I want to go further than this and I hope the hon. member for Houghton will support me. I want to suggest that the industrialist be obliged to contribute to the Bantu’s travelling expenses to his homeland. The State too must make its contribution and institute special concessions for making it cheap for him to go to his homeland, so that the Bantu too may be happy in his family circle.

I want to tell the hon. member that we may argue as we like all day long, but we shall never see eye to eye, because there is a world of difference between the policy of the National Party and that of the United Party.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I am Progressive Party.

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

Ah well, as far as the Progressive Party is concerned you have no policy; you are just messing up things in the country. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order!

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

The hon. member spoke about family life as well. Is the family life of the Bantu disintegrating purely on account of the migratory labour system? No, that is not the only cause. Has there not been a large increase in the disintegration of family life amongst the Whites as well since World War II? Is the problem not much greater than we think? I want to suggest that we institute a very thorough investigation into this matter. Does the lobola system not play a very major role in the disintegration of the family life of the Bantu?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

No, of course not.

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

No? As far as the hon. member is concerned, it does not play a major role. There is only one thing which the hon. member wants to see. She is so biased that she can never see anything beyond her black glasses. I should like to ask the hon. member whether she knows what is happening in the Bantu homelands? Does she think family life in the homelands is so beautiful and so noble and so fine? Has she made a study of this? No. The hon. member snatches a few ideas from here and a few ideas from there, but she is not prepared to take a look at the wide picture. I want to tell the hon. member things have never been going as well with the Bantu in South Africa as they are going to-day.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

*Mr. W. J. C. ROSSOUW:

Mr. Speaker, this morning this House listened to what I think was one of the most vicious speeches ever made in this House. A plea was made, not for this country, but for consumption by those people overseas who do not approve of the principles and the non-White policy of this country. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Brakpan. Let us go back somewhat in history. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton what happened from 1933 to 1948 when that side of this House was in power. What did they do for the non-White? A picture was painted here this morning with the object of illustrating that this Government was suppressing the non-White of this country and that we were opposing him in all spheres by means of legislation. But that is not so. I want to ask the hon. member whether she recalls the disorder and chaos which existed in the days of Sophiatown, Alexandra, Newclare and Page View. Does the hon. member know those places? I want to extend an invitation to that hon. member to take a drive with me through Soweto. I know Soweto from one side to the other.

*Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

So do I.

*Mr. W. J. C. ROSSOUW:

Yes, but I know it at first hand. For the past 16 years I have had experience of the matters I am discussing now.

What has this National Government done for the non-White in this country? Let us just look at a few figures. In the first place I want to pay tribute not only to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development for the work it has done, but also to those city councils that are implementing the policy of the Government, and have appointed men to the top posts who are conscientiously implementing the policy of the Government. If the hon. member had rather said that the city councils of Johannesburg, Durban and Port Elizabeth had failed in the beginning, and were still failing to some extent at the present time, to implement the policy of the Government, I would have agreed with her. Why were Meadowlands and Diepkloof established and why was the Resettlement Board instituted? That was done in order to do those things which fit into our policy and which the Johannesburg City Council and its officials did not want to do.

The picture we had from the hon. member for Houghton this morning, was the black side only. She was trying to escape from reality and omitted to say what the real state of affairs was. I just want to tell her that 14,000 dwelling units were built in Meadowlands alone during the past decade, chiefly for people resettled from Sophiatown. Nobody dared travel through Sophiatown at night. I went through Sophiatown at night in order to do my work and my duty, but we were always under police protection. To-day one can travel through Meadowlands by day or night because it is peaceful. Let us look at Diepkloof. In recent times 10,500 families have been resettled there.

These figures do not apply to the West Rand only, but also to the East Rand. Mr. Speaker, do you still recall the enormous squatters’ settlements near Anzac and Springs and in the vicinity of Pretoria, etc.? This side of the House had to do the clearance work. That side of the House always refers to the war which was in progress while they were in power and as a result of which they could not do that work. In reply I want to tell them that the war ended in 1945. What did they do from 1945 up to 24th May, 1948? What did they do from 1933 up to 1939? They did absolutely nothing. These are the facts. Let us take a town like Springs. I want to mention figures in order to illustrate what Springs recently spent on its non-White population in respect of housing only. It spent R4 million on housing alone. This does not include schools, hostel facilities, etc. Boksburg spent R3 1/4 million and Benoni R7 million. Here we were faced with United Party city councils, but they were prepared to co-operate with the Government and to carry out its policy.

But this is not all. Those hon. members opposite maintain that we are suppressing these non-Whites. This is not so. As far as health is concerned I want to say that the Provincial Council of the Transvaal alone spent more than R19½ million on health, hospitalization and clinics for the non-Whites in the Transvaal last year. I challenge the other side of this House to tell me what other part of the world, yes, including even the mighty America, has done more pro rata for its non-Whites than this country. Even the mighty America has not done more on a pro rata basis. I challenge them to try and disprove this.

Let us take the townships which have been established. When was Soweto, the largest township in the Republic of South Africa, established? This township was established in the time of this Government. Before such time these Bantu were living under very difficult conditions in the slum areas of the Witwatersrand.

That hon. member also spoke of the system of migratory labour. I myself am a migratory labourer. For six months I live in the Cape without my wife. Nor does the husband of the hon. member for Houghton live here. The condition of both of us is still quite good. Consequently migratory labour cannot really be such a bad thing. I want to say that this is a sacrifice demanded of her and of me as of scores of other people. This is a sacrifice which one has to make if one wants to care for one’s family. It is impossible to resettle the families of all migratory labourers from the Transkei or from Botswana or from the Peddie area or from the Nyasaland area on the Witwatersrand. This cannot possibly be done but what we do is to provide employment for them there. The mines have been using migratory labourers for the past 40 years and I have never heard that side of this House objecting to that. Why not?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I did.

The MINISTER OF TOURISM:

You did not do so while you were a member of the United Party.

*Mr. W. J. C. ROSSOUW:

Mr. Speaker, let us have no illusions about this. I am a champion of the system of migratory labour and I trust that the day will arrive when every Bantu in our white areas will be a migratory labourer.

Mr. Speaker, what did we hear from that side this morning? It was said here that the Government was not doing anything in regard to education. Show me any Bantu township which has been planned on the Witwatersrand where no provision has been made for Bantu schools.

*Mr. W. G. KINGWELL:

What about Graaff-Reinet?

*Mr. W. J. C. ROSSOUW:

If there is no Bantu school in Graaff-Reinet that hon. member must see to it that a school will be built there. Take, for example, the sports facilities which have been provided for the Bantu. Just go and have a look at the Orlando stadium, one of the best-equipped sportsgrounds in the country for non-Whites. I challenge hon. members opposite to prove to us that we have not been doing our duty as regards the Bantu. We are doing our duty and we know what our duty is but the trouble is that the Opposition knows that we have gained the confidence of the non-Whites. I invite any hon. member opposite to go on visits of observation with me. I shall give them my address and they can make an appointment with me. I am prepared to take them to all those Bantu townships. One of my Bantu constables once told me, “Sir, when I lived in Sophiatown and slept under a few sheets of tin only where I froze in winter and was drenched in summer, nobody took any pity on me but now that I am living like a human being in a small house of my own now they tell me that I should go on strike. How can I do something, like that?” The non-Whites realize that the intentions of this side of the House are honourable. Sir, the hon member for Houghton is very quiet now. She is quiet because the truth hurts. ’This morning she furnished so-called facts but she cannot prove any of them.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Incitement.

*Mr. W. J. C. ROSSOUW:

Yes, incitement for the outside world.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

I quoted your own Minister’s figures.

*Mr. W. J. C. ROSSOUW:

That is not so. The hon. member spoke of businesses. Sir, no Bantu area is established anywhere on the entire Witwatersrand complex in which no provision is made for a business complex. Those businesses are run by the Bantu themselves and they rent those premises from the city council. In this way the Bantu are being trained to serve their own people.

In conclusion I just want to repeat my invitation to hon. members on that side of this House. If they contact me, I shall take them through those areas. They need not ask one of the officials to take them there; I shall take them there myself. I am sure they will come back feeling ashamed of themselves.

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

The hon. member for Stilfontein, who has just sat down, started off by launching a personal attack, as usual, upon the hon. member for Houghton.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

Are you feeling sorry for her?

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

He then climbed on to, the old hobby horse of using the Johannesburg city council as a whipping-boy. As usual, of course, we had the old story about the council doing nothing for housing and about the re-settlement board coming, into being. I want to say to hon. members opposite that this is a horse which will pot. run any more, because the people in South Africa know that the Johannesburg City council has been responsible for building thousands of houses in Johannesburg. They know that when there was a lack of money, it was the Johannesburg City Council which approached the mining houses and got money to build houses. I hope we will hear no more about the re-settlement board and the removal scheme in Johannesburg because hon. members on that side know that the only reason for the coming into being of the re-settlement board was the fact that the United Party City Council decided that where you take away freehold. you should give freehold in return. They stood on a principle and for that reason the re-settlement board came into being. Let hon. members opposite look at reports from the re-settlement board and they will see there that on many occasions the re-settlement board has thanked the Johannesburg City Council for the co-operation and assistance received from the Council with regard to the provision of services for these housing schemes. Do hon. members opposite forget that it was the Johannesburg City Council who trained Bantu building workers who eventually were building as many as 40 houses a day in Johannesburg? I have never said and we on this side have never said that the Government has done nothing for non-white housing. One gets sick and tired of hearing this same old story that the Johannesburg City Council is doing nothing for Native housing. We know that it is purely because the Johannesburg City Council is a United Party-controlled Council that these things are being said. It is a very bitter pill for the Government to swallow that they are running the country and that the United Party is in fact running the City of Johannesburg.

Coming to the hon. member for Brakpan, I want to say sincerely that I was very sorry to see to what lengths he went to attack the hon. member for Houghton personally. I want to say that I certainly do not agree with the politics of the hon. member for Houghton, but I believe that we are living in a democratic country and that any person is entitled to his or her political beliefs, whatever they are. Sir, the hon. member for Brakpan got very upset because somebody had said that there was poverty amongst the non-Whites in South Africa.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

No, it was said that there was starvation.

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

I know exactly what was said. He also said that somebody had mentioned that nothing was being done about it. Well, this is not true. All that was said on this side was that there was poverty in South Africa. If the hon. member wants to be fair he will admit that there is poverty amongst the Whites and that there is poverty amongst the Blacks. Nobody on this side has said that the Government is doing nothing about it. Let us be perfectly fair about it. Sir, he did mention too that Mr. Carr, the General Manager of the Non-European Affairs Department in Johannesburg, had made a certain statement. I want to quote to him from an interim report, called “Forward Planning Report” to which Mr. Carr subscribed, which gives an entirely different impression. In the summary this is what Mr. Carr in fact said—

Scope for employment within the Bantu group areas appears to be limited and unlikely to be of any importance for the period ending 1980.

He goes on to say—

The central area and its immediate environs is an important generator of Bantu work opportunity. The demand for Bantu labour in the economy of the City is unlikely to be met by a natural increase.

He then ends on this note—

Bantu wages barely keep pace with the rising costs of living and are a matter of extreme concern.

Sir, we are not blaming the Government for this. I merely take exception to the fact that hon. members on the other side take exception to the statement that there is in fact a certain amount of poverty among the non-Whites, as there is also among the Whites.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

Reference was made to starvation, not to poverty.

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

Sir, unlike hon. members on that side, I would like to get back to the motion before the House. The substance of the motion, of course, is that the hon. member for Houghton calls for the appointment of a judicial commission of inquiry to investigate and report on laws specifically affecting Africans resident in the urban areas, with special reference to the disintegration of family life, the increase in the crime rate, the restrictions on economic opportunity and the inadequate provision for education. The motion specifically calls for an impartial judicial inquiry to establish if these laws are in fact curbing the development of the Bantu in the urban areas. Sir, I want to say that the only thing which the hon. member for Houghton did which possibly she should not have done, was to anticipate the findings of the commission for which she pleads in her motion. Sir, I am going to support this motion proposed by the hon. member for Houghton and I want to give my reasons for doing so. We on this side of the House are realists. We know that the urban Bantu will be with us whether this Government is in power or whether another Government is in power. We know, and I think they in their hearts know, that without a stable Bantu urban population the economy of this country will crash and for that reason we will support any motion which we feel may have the effect of creating a better life for the urban Bantu in South Africa. I believe quite sincerely that a judicial commission with terms of reference such as those suggested in the motion, a commission that will obviously approach its task with an open mind and completely free from any political bias, might come up with a report which could—and I say this advisedly—make the Government in power to-day have a new look at the mass of legislation which affects the urban Bantu in South Africa to-day. I say this in all sincerity because I do not believe that any member on that side really knows exactly what a Bantu in an urban area has to put up with in his daily life in order to keep within the mass of regulations which affect his life from day to day. I believe that any member who wants to go to the trouble, for instance, to get a copy of a publication called “Urban Bantu Laws”, by A. Gordon, will find that this particular publication runs to more than one million words. It has three supplements and I believe it is completely out of date to-day already.

I want to say in all sincerity that I accept without any reservation that the urban Bantu legislation which we have to-day in South Africa was conceived in the first place and placed on the Statute Book in good faith. I believe that quite sincerely. But I wonder whether the legislators who were responsible for drawing up this mass of legislation could have imagined how much insecurity, uncertainty and confusion it would create in the minds of the law-abiding urban Bantu in South Africa; and I wonder if we can really argue with Professor Lewin when he says in his paper entitled “Crime in Relation to the Bantu policy” that no African could be sure at any time that he was not committing an offence and that the legal position to-day is such that the police can arrest any African walking down the Main Street of Johannesburg at any time of the day or night and any competent prosecutor would have no difficulty whatsoever in finding some offence with which he can be charged. I am prepared to admit that on the face of it this would seem to be a completely far-fetched overstatement of the case by Professor Lewin, but when you read the paper published by Professor Venter you find figures which show that of the 1,055,697 prosecutions in the year ended 30th June, 1964, no fewer than 527,731 were for infringements of curfew, offences to do with registration and insufficient documents, infringements of the Bantu Urban Areas Act and infringements of tax regulations. When you read these figures, you feel that this assertion is not as far-fetched as it seems at first sight. There is very clear evidence that the urban non-European administrators, who after all are the people who are concerned from day to day with interpreting and administering the mass of legislation they have before them, are worried, because we find that Mr. Coller, the retiring president of the Institute of Administrators of Non-European Affairs, in his presidential address suggested to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration that he should consider setting up a small advisory committee which could be called together at short notice, consisting of members of the Council of the Institute appointed by him, to advise him before legislation is resorted to and to assist him in resolving urban problems within the framework of the implementation of basic Government policy. Mr. Coller goes on to say that if this were done he hopes the spate of legislation governing the Bantu in the urban areas might cease and the municipal administrators could be entrusted with the responsibility of handling difficult cases by exercising their own discretion, with better results than are obtained at present. I know this is only the opinion of an official, but I repeat that these are people who actually have to carry out the Government’s laws, and therefore we must take them seriously.

When we look at the items in the motion before the House, we find that the first item which calls for a special term of reference is the disruption of family life among the Bantu in the urban areas. Here, I submit that a judicial commission could probably find that the normal family life of the urban Bantu is hampered by regulations which have the effect of preventing thousands of Africans from being with their families in the towns, because various studies have shown quite clearly that only 25 per cent of married men in the urban areas have their wives with them at any particular time. The fact that the urban Bantu is reminded constantly that he is not accepted as a permanent member of the urban area in which he lives and works is certainly, I should think, not conducive to the building up of a happy family life.

Without any doubt the question that should exercise the minds of the commissioners most would be the second term of reference in the motion dealing with the increase in crime in the urban areas.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

Are you in favour of every Bantu bringing his wife and family into the urban areas?

Mr. D. J. MARAIS:

I said nothing of the sort. We are dealing now with a request for a judicial commission of inquiry. I do not think the Deputy Minister should try to trap me into answering his silly question.

I said that the commission would have to apply its mind particularly to the increase in crime in the Bantu urban areas. To gauge the enormity of the problem, one only has to take the example of the largest Bantu urban complex in South Africa, Soweto. I make bold to say that no one can examine the crime figures in Soweto without a sense of shock and dismay. I go further and say one shudders to think what the position would be if it were not for the efforts of a dedicated Police Force, white and black, who have to deal with this fantastic problem of crime every day in Soweto. While one expects a certain amount of crime in any given area, we must look for an underlying cause when you have crime of this magnitude. I want to recite just a few figures to show how really serious the crime position in this particular complex is.

We find that the townships of Johannesburg have a rate of more than 1,000 murders a year. We also find that murders average as many as three a day. I want to ask hon. members opposite what they would do if they opened their newspaper on a Monday morning in any city of South Africa and found that three people were murdered the day before and that there was likely to be another three murdered the next day. One can imagine the outcry there would be and the sense of shock which every decent citizen in that city would feel when he looked at these figures. I want to go further and ask them what they would feel if they opened their papers and found that in one week-end as many as 20 people were murdered. This is not far-fetched; it happens very often in that complex. Might I remind hon. members opposite, too, that Soweto has the highest paraplegic rate in the world, due entirely to the number of stabbings which take place there day in and day out. Can we shrug this off when we find that approximately 30,000 assault cases were treated at Baragwaneth and municipal clinics in one year, from January to December, 1966? What a shocking set of figures! It amazes me to see that not a single speaker opposite even mentioned the question of this fantastic amount of crime we have in Soweto. [Interjection.] I heard here that I was talking against myself. I said earlier that I appreciated that the police, and I am sure the Government also, are doing their very best to control this crime. I mentioned also that as far as I am concerned there must be some deep underlying cause for this crime. One does not want to quote too often, but I feel I must quote just a few people who are in touch with this crime position every day.

I start off by quoting very briefly Mr. Patrick Lewis, Chairman of the Non-European Affairs Committee of the Johannesburg City Council. He says this in a lecture—

But it is important to remember that the main sufferers are the Africans themselves. I often feel that to-day the greatest need in Soweto is to find some way of providing the law-abiding citizen with protection from molestation by his fellows.

Then we have Mr. Carr, the Manager of the Non-European Affairs Department, saying this—

There are many people in Soweto who have taken to lives of violent crime. Many of them are young, and in some cases children, and they are growing up in an atmosphere of thuggery and disregard for the law. Unless something is done, the next 50 or 60 years are going to be absolute hell in Soweto.

Then I want to quote what the police themselves think of this position, because we have a report here saying that the Police Headquarters in Johannesburg and Pretoria have plans, but the men who work in Soweto are baffled. They say that looking at the problem from a policeman’s point of view, there are so many criminals that they do not know where to start. “An officer told me that the only way to stop violence is to search every man, woman and child entering the township, but of course that is impossible; it would take all night.” Finally, we have a responsible officer, Capt. W. J. Fouché, the officer in charge of the Meadowlands Police Station, saying this—

It is impossible to imagine how much stabbing goes on. You have to see it to believe it.

This is followed by Dr. V. Kemp, Chief District Surgeon, who says—

They seem to kill with such little compunction that it is endlessly distressing.

I have given here a fairly good cross-section of people who are in daily touch with this problem of crime in Soweto. I believe that this aspect alone calls for the appointment of a judicial commission, because it is not possible that this amount of crime can take place year after year if there were not some deep-rooted causes which have to be eradicated. So I want to say finally that we make absolutely no apology for supporting the motion of the hon. member for Houghton, because we feel that such a judicial commission would serve a very good purpose. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will not just shrug this off but will give it his serious attention.

*Mr. B. PIENAAR:

The introduction of a motion of this type in this House year after year by the hon. member for Houghton has by this time degenerated into a scandalously and shamelessly negative performance by her. The tenor never differs, the presentation is always as pathetic as before and the approach is always negative. With reference to the speech she made to-day, I want to say that I would have been ashamed of myself had I been in her shoes, but we on this side have never been able to get her to be ashamed of herself. She asked for the appointment of a judicial commission to investigate the laws affecting Africans in the white urban areas, the very laws which seek to bring order to society, combat immorality, prevent crime, create educational facilities and economic opportunities for the Bantu himself. I wish she would come to realize that the attitude we adopt in regard to these matters is based on the principles of the National Party concerning the position of the Bantu in South Africa. As opposed to the policy of the Progressive Party this surely is a case of “east is east and west is west, and never the twain shall meet”. I want to say in all fairness that I do not believe that all members of the Progressive Party share in the views expressed here by her to-day. There are also semi-good Progs in this country, people who are not intent on upsetting the race structure and our traditional way of life in South Africa. They are people who would take fright and become Nationalists if they had to learn, as we do from time to time, about the politics of integration advocated by the hon. member.

As I want to confine myself to-day more specifically to the reference to education in this motion, I want, in all fairness, to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the United Party cannot be absolved from the type of allegation we have been hearing to-day. I want to remind them that it was but a mere ten years ago that the hon. member for Houghton rejected their party. They have the same origin and basically they are birds of a feather. I now want to mention one example only.

From time to time, in season and out of season, we have to hear from people such as the hon. members for Berea, Mooi River and Pietermaritzburg (District) of the “inefficiency” of the university colleges. We have to hear that they are white elephants, that they are failures …

*Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

When did we say that?

*Mr. B. PIENAAR:

Simply go and read your Hansard.

*Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

Where?

*Mr. B. PIENAAR:

We have to hear that accommodation is poor. We have even heard from them that certain students at these colleges do not have a matriculation certificate. I leave them at that.

I want to make the statement that the policy of separate development of the National Party aims for nation-building for all the various population groups in this country. In contrast to that the Progressive Party champions complete integration. The hon. member for Houghton must not think that we have forgotten that she said as long ago as 1961 that a single black face in this House would improve its appearance a great deal. And what does the United Party say? They speak of white leadership “for the foreseeable future” and this indicates the same thing. These differences are vital and basic ones and lead to different interpretations of every requirement, of every conceivable situation we come across in this connection—socially, economically, educationally, as well as far as financial contributions and implications are concerned. We believe that education of the Bantu must be for the Bantu. We believe that the school must be the focal point of the community. I wonder whether the hon. member for Houghton realizes that there are more than 50,000 Bantu parents who are directly concerned in school boards and school committees and that education penetrates to them as well, that this is the indirect kind of adult education. I wonder whether she realizes that newer methods of agriculture penetrate through the schools to the parents in this way. These are the positive aspects of the policy. Our ideas simply are incompatible. The policy of the Progressive Party seeks a multi-racial society here in South Africa. We, on the other hand, believe that we must help the Bantu to help himself on the road of natural and gradual self-development. The Progressive Party and the hon. member for Houghton, to be specific, sees one thing only, and that is the summary preparation for a multi-racial South African economic society and community.

Last year the hon. member asked for more secondary schools for Bantu in white urban areas, but in so doing she specified that those schools were to be established at specific places.

*The DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for Rustenburg and the hon. member for Houghton must put an end to their private debate.

*Mr. B. PIENAAR:

She did not ask for more secondary schools to be provided at just any place, but specifically asked for them to be provided in the white urban community, there where they would be closest to her multi-racial community. It was alleged that if secondary education was not provided there, the parents would be afraid to send their children to the high schools in the homeland, afraid that the children would remain there and would work there, which, according to the hon. member, would be promoting the policy of separate development. In addition it would promote the economic development of the homelands, and this is something she does not want. How many white boys and girls here in South Africa, no, all over the world, do not have to leave their parents too? What is the difference?

Let us look at the actual educational provision for the Bantu in the white urban areas. The Bantu residential areas are planned scientifically in respect of housing, public services and educational facilities, and there is a formula which was accepted long ago and according to which the number of classrooms and the number of schools are determined in proportion to the number of dwelling units in that residential area. This ratio has been in existence since 1958 and is as follows: Five lower primary schools to three higher primary schools to one post-primary school. The lower primary schools are established by local authorities from money obtained by them from housing loans, and those loans are redeemed, interest as well as capital, from site levies which may not amount to more than 20 per cent per site. Up to 1967 higher primary schools were established on a 50-50 basis and under this system the local community, the school boards, had to contribute 50 per cent and the Government the remaining 50 per cent by way of a subsidy provision. But because the local communities have been experiencing difficulty in finding their 50 per cent, the Government has now agreed that local authorities may establish also higher primary schools from housing loan funds and may employ those site levies for defraying such expenditure. This is an additional concession which exists alongside the rand for rand or 50-50 per cent scheme, but always within the framework of the ratio 5:3:1. Post-primary schools are still being established on the rand for rand basis. Now it must be stated clearly that secondary schools are not being freely established in white urban areas, but only on the basis of merit.

*Mr. M. W. BOTHA:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is an hon. member entitled to read a newspaper in this House?

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

No, who is reading a newspaper? Order! Hon. members may not read newspapers here. The hon. member may proceed.

*Mr. B. PIENAAR:

I regret that the hon. member for Jeppes is wasting my time in this way.

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order! The hon. member for East London (City) must put that newspaper down now.

*Mr. B. PIENAAR:

The attitude of the Government is that secondary schools are not location-orientated and obviously the Government is therefore giving preference to the establishment of these schools in the homelands where they may serve as symbols of progress, where they have economic significance and where the products of these high schools may be employed in promoting that Bantu homeland. Generally speaking we may therefore say that school facilities are being provided by the Government in terms of the Bantu Education Act of 1953, in terms of which the Bantu too are expected to make a contribution to their educational facilities. This is a principle which is a sound one socially and educationally. Where there may be a delay in the provision of lower primary schools at the present moment, that is attributable purely to the economic conditions prevailing in our country, in fact, throughout the world at the present time. Where there is a shortage of higher primary schools in white urban areas, the Bantu communities of those residential areas themselves are to blame. Where they are cooperating with the Department in providing these facilities, there are no problems. There are 200 secondary schools in the homelands and I want to suggest that if secondary education is a matter about which they and the hon. member for Houghton are in earnest— as I believe they are—they will not mind going to the homelands to receive their high school education there. According to a survey made by the Department in 1967, full use is not being made of all the accommodation in high schools in the Bantu homelands. But let us put this point very clearly: Where it may be possible to argue about the merits of secondary schools, i.e. up to Std. VIII, in white urban areas, the hon. the Minister has told us that high schools would definitely not be established there. I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

Mr. Speaker, I expected from the hon. member for Zululand some contribution to this debate on the subject of crime and the prevention of crime. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the recess when the farmers in his area were agitating madly about stock thefts and asking that measures should be taken to prevent them, this hon. member referred to their efforts as a wild west show, that they were a lot of cowboys, riding around, trying to shoot crooks on their own. I really expected an endeavour from this hon. member to try and redeem himself from the effects of that particular statement of his. Because the motion that we have before us to-day calls for a judicial commission of inquiry, I want to say that I support it 100 per cent. Surely, one reaches a time in the course of legislation where one can profitably stop and take a calm, cool look at the effects that laws passed in the immediate past have on the population at large. But our position here in South Africa is that the laws we have just recently passed, during the last 10 or 20 years, have a bearing on the majority of our population who are voiceless. They are completely voiceless, except in what contact they have with the hon. the Minister and his Department.

An HON. MEMBER:

A very good contact.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

I do not accept it. My hon. friend may be a very good contact, but if this is his opinion I do not accept it. I believe that there is to-day a very good case to be made out for an inquiry of this nature, an inquiry which is completely calm, judicial, above and away from politics, to allow us to get to the basic facts of what is going on in our country and how these laws affect the daily life of the majority of our people, who are voiceless. From that point of view alone I believe that the motion of the hon. member for Houghton, asking for a judicial commission of inquiry, is worth supporting. There have been commissions in the past. The hon. member mentioned the Fagan Commission. There was also the Broome Commission in Natal inquiring into Indian penetration into different areas of Durban. Such an inquiry can assist us in getting at the basic facts. This is what we need when we plan legislation. As the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has said, there is such a maze of legislation in which the average Bantu to-day is entangled. It takes the poor chap the whole of his life to find out when he will be breaking the law and when not. Therefore I believe that there is a very good case to be made out for a commission of this nature. It will in fact mean—I think the hon. member for Houghton will agree—a judicial inquiry into the whole nature of apartheid. I think it could come to that, but if the Government is confident of its cause, why should they be afraid of it? If they have confidence in their cause and they feel that they are on the right path, a judicial commission of inquiry could either reinforce their case or show them where they are wrong.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

Since when are commissions appointed to investigate policies?

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

Mr. Speaker, they would investigate the effects of the laws passed by this Government in pursuance of its policy. That is what it would do. I am not asking to investigate their policy. The hon. the Minister knows better than that himself.

Brig. H. J. BRONKHORST:

Any “pampoen” knows what this policy is like.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

I want to ask the Deputy Minister when he replies to make some comment on the position of the Bantu in urban areas in South Africa, for instance on whether they are to be regarded as permanently there, whether they are not permanently there and how they are going to be returned to their homelands. I think this is the one question that we want to be answered today by this hon. the Deputy Minister.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

And what is it going to cost?

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

No, Mr. Speaker. That is only part of it. But we have here a request for a commission into a matter such as the prevention of crime. I say without fear of any contradiction that no member in this House on either side knows the answer to that. And yet, Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Minister, I am quite certain from the look on his face and the way he is writing notes, will get up and turn down this motion. He is not prepared to go to the extent of appointing a commission to try and find out the causes and to try and find out the remedy and to draw on the experience of other nations, countries and people who are facing precisely the same problems that we face. This is a universal problem.

Mr. B. PIENAAR:

How can you ask for a commission of inquiry into laws?

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

Certainly; the laws have an effect. The motion asked specifically for an inquiry into the effect of laws on the urban population, specifically in the relation to the prevention of crime. The hon. member for Zululand should have made that point when he was speaking. He must not do that when he is sitting down. He looks much better when he is standing up.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this motion deals with a phenomenon which is in fact universal. It happens all over the world. Those hon. members who have studied history will know how in the past century the same social phenomenon took place in Great Britain, where the mass of the population moved from the countryside into urban areas. We talk about poverty, crime and malnutrition in our country to-day. There were conditions far worse in those days in Great Britain. Let us be absolutely frank about this and admit that in those days, a 100 and more years ago in Great Britain, there were absolutely terrible conditions in the cities. But, Mr. Speaker, they have learned how to cope with those conditions. They are making continual progress in this matter. I believe this is something of which we have to take cognizance and try to learn from the experience of others overseas. We can do it in this way, namely by means of a commission that we can appoint.

One of the gravest factors that we are faced with, is the breakdown in Bantu family life. The Bantu are a tribal people with a very, very rigid set of customs. The hon. member for Brakpan mentioned the custom of lobola. This was one of the greatest means of ensuring chastity in the young female Bantu that one can find. It was something which was part and parcel of the Bantu’s way of life. But today it is broken down. It is impossible to be maintained in the urban areas.

*Mr. W. J. C. ROSSOUW:

You are talking nonsense!

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

What does the hon. member know about that? [Interjections.]

An HON. MEMBER:

He never paid lobola.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

He sits there at the back and shouts “you are talking nonsense”. Does he know about anything? Does he know about the Bantu population in the rural area where the lobola works? I bet he does not. [Interjections.] I am quite sure, Mr. Speaker, that when he was moving around in a gold mine he was not looking out to see how the lobola system works. [Interjections.] This hon. Deputy Minister says he is going to fix me up. Is that what he said? What I am saying, is that what the hon. the Deputy Minister needs to cope with a problem of this nature, is the wisdom of Solomon, but what we have, Mr. Speaker, is a Deputy Minister which, I think, is an intellectual Twiggy. [Interjections.] That is why we have such a problem that we have to cope with to-day. Here we have a problem which is universal and which has not been solved yet in other countries, but they are working towards a solution. This Deputy Minister is going to put up a big act to-day and he is going to tell us the answer. I believe that poverty throughout the Bantu population is one of the greatest problems with which we are faced. I make bold to say that the white race as such has done a great deal to help the Bantu rise from the poverty in which they have found themselves in the past. My own feeling is that we are making progress. I am afraid that I do not associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Houghton when she said that it is only by oppression that we keep the Bantu people under in this country. I honestly believe that they are making progress. I do not believe that oppression alone can keep down an entire population. Prince Schwartzenberg who was the Prime Minister of Austria in 1860, said that you can do anything with bayonets except sit on them. I think that he had a point there, but I do not believe that that applies to our country to-day. A book was written by Oscar Lewis, a sociologist, who made an intensive study of poverty in Mexico. It is something which hon. members should read because it shows how poverty has an effect on the entire social structure and home life of the local population in Mexico which is a very close parallel to the position in this country.

I want to return to the hon. member for Brakpan who said that migratory labour is now going to be the basis of our industrial labour force. I want to know how this policy is going to be reconciled with the Bantu who are now living in Soweto. I am prepared to accept that this Government has escaped the bulk of the problem because they have declared a great number of our largest industrial areas border areas. Therefore they do not have to worry about where the Bantu live and what they do. They are now living in the homelands. But what about Soweto where there are some 600,000 Bantu living to-day. What are they going to do? Are they going to take all those people away?

Mr. W. J. C. ROSSOUW:

[Inaudible.]

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

Mr. Speaker, that hon. member must have had a very bad dinner because something seems to have disagreed with him. He is not looking at all happy.

The hon. member for Brakpan suggested that once every three months, if I understood him correctly, the Bantu workers who to-day live in Soweto should be allowed to return home to the homelands. He suggested that they should work an extra 1½ hours a day to build up sufficient time to allow them to go. I made some calculations and found that within a week a man would have 7½ hours leave due to him. At the end of a month he would have 30 hours due to him to go home, for which he has worked. At the end of two months he would have 60 hours if he works a 40 hour week. I calculated that at the end of 2 months, this man would have 2 weeks leave due to him from his employer. The hon. member suggested that the State should subsidize his travelling and that the employer should pay him a levy to allow him to go for 2½½

weeks every three months.

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

I did not say 2½ weeks.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

The hon. member said that a man should work an extra 1½ hours a day every day to build up time so that he would have sufficient time to his credit to go on leave. I worked it out that if this were done every 2½ months a man would have 2 weeks leave due to him. If this is done it will mean that you will need at least one-seventh more Bantu living in the white urban areas to do the work of those people who are going to be on leave at any one time. This is the kind of thing we get from this hon. member. I wondered whether he was making an election speech. I wondered what kind of job he was looking for. It seems that he has already got it. Perhaps this was his post-election acceptance speech. He asked the Minister in all seriousness to consider giving a subsidy and he is probably going to announce this in his speech now. What it in fact boils down to is that one-seventh more Bantu will be permanently resident in the white urban areas to do the work of those people who go on leave.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

I will buy you a slide rule.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not know how to use a slide rule. I also want to know where all the Bantu are going to live in the homelands. We have been told that these people must go home. I shall come shortly to the question of what we will do when they do go home. As the Minister knows, we have discussed this matter before. What programme has the Minister got on the stocks now to provide housing in the homelands for these people when they return home from Soweto? I want to know whether the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Brakpan are serious about this.

An HON. MEMBER:

They are always serious.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

If they are always serious, they must approach their work in a very light-hearted manner because that hon. Minister has announced it as the intention of his Department to repatriate and do without 100,000 labourers, as there are in an area such as Soweto. They are not permanently resident there. They are going to go back to their homes. I want a statement from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to the future of the industrial complex on the Witwatersrand. Are all these people now simply to be regarded as temporary dwellers? Will they live their working lives in the white areas and then go away as soon as they are redundant? Will they have no permanence or security? If that is the hon. the Minister’s reply, then the case for a judicial commission of inquiry into the laws affecting them, is strengthened. Because the one thing that mitigates against an orderly and peace-loving society, and a society that dwells together in amity and controls its own affairs, is the fact that they have no security whatever in the areas in which they are living. I believe that what this Government is doing with the laws it is passing to-day, as the hon. member for Houghton so rightly said, is destroying the very basis on which the Bantu are living and working in the largest industrial area in the whole of South Africa from which we draw our lifeblood. The whole structure by which they live is being destroyed by this Government. If we cannot have a judicial commission of inquiry to look into those laws, then I think it is a disgrace on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe that we are entitled to know what the position is. The Government tells us that it has an overall plan dealing with the Bantu. This commission is asked to inquire into the laws dealing with the Bantu. I should like to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is prepared to appoint such a commission.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

No.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

Here we have the answer even before the Minister replies. I want to ask him whether he does not agree that the urban areas in which the Bantu are resident such as Soweto will grow larger and larger. If they are not to grow larger, the natural increase in that area must be housed, employed and fed somewhere else. I want to know whether the plan is now that all the Bantu who are born there in the next few years are going to have to work somewhere else and leave that area. I say again that the whole of South Africa lives off the Witwatersrand. The whole of our economic lifeblood flows from the effort which is put in jointly by White and Black on the Witwatersrand, which is the most important concentration of industry, wealth and capital that we have in South Africa. I believe that we deserve a statement from this Minister. Let him give us a cool, calm statement, if he is capable of doing so, telling us in detail, and without getting excited or waving his arms, what is going to happen to all those people.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

Why can I not wave my arms?

Mr W. M. SUTTON: I shall make a concession to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He can wave his arms if he gives us a reply.

I now want to come to the question of crime in these areas. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) talked about the effect upon the youth of the Bantu in Soweto particularly, of the crime wave which is sweeping that area. This is something of prime importance to the white man.

Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

What crime wave are you talking about?

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

The hon. member for Brakpan. must not ask me where the crime wave is, when an average of three people are murdered every day. Some 20 people are murdered-every week.

Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

Where do you get that?

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

Was the hon. member not listening when that hon. member quoted the figures? Is this something which those hon. members accept as normal?

Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

Have you read the Police reports?

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

No I have not. When the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) quoted these figures, not one hon. member on that side said a word. The truth is that there is a tremendous amount of crime, such as murdering and stabbing on the Witwatersrand. This is particularly true in regard to the younger people.

An HON. MEMBER:

And in England !

Mr. W. M. SUTTON:

If the hon. member had been listening he would have heard me saying at the beginning of my speech that this is a universal phenomenon. We are asking for a commission of inquiry so that we can establish the reasons for this situation and attempt to find a solution. I believe that the effect on the youth of the Bantu in the urban areas, is going to be very serious for us as white people because it has been proved in America that it is the youth who start the riots or other trouble in every case. I believe that it is a great mistake for us merely to accept this position without trying to get to the basic causes of the crime wave which has been going on in our country. There must be a reason for it. Poverty, the jamming together of people in small areas and the living together of men in great numbers are all parts of the reason. Surely we can attempt to find the solution. That is also why we support this motion asking for a judicial commission of inquiry.

A Bill is at present before this House dealing with the development of the Bantu homelands. We have other legislation which deals with the development of the border areas. We have all kinds of legislation which is designed to repatriate these Bantu and remove them from the urban areas. I want to know how the Government sees the future of white industry in these areas, if their measures are successful. If the measures which they are taking to-day to repatriate all these people are successful, what is the future of the white man and white industry in the white urban areas? If the Government lays down all sorts of conditions, for instance in regard to the whole of the secondary education structure, the entertainment structure such as the football fields and the swimming pools which the hon. the Deputy Minister will not allow them to build in Johannesburg, and if they send them all back to the homelands, what will the future of the Witwatersrand complex be? Where is the money going to come from for the development of. all these areas which the Government has declared homelands? It comes to-day from the white economy and in that economy White and Black are working together to-day. The most important source of this money is the Witwatersrand. I wonder whether this Government is planning some kind of rundown of industry in this area by bleeding away the sources of labour upon which the industrialists in that area rely. I should be very grateful if the hon. the Deputy Minister will try to give us some kind of reply. I say “some kind of reply”, because that is the kind of reply I expect from the hon. the Deputy Minister.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River started his speech by saying that the majority of the black people we were discussing here had no voice in South Africa. I want to tell him that that is absolutely untrue. Never before in the history of South Africa has there been better and more communication between the Bantu and the Government than there is to-day. Furthermore I want to tell him that the Bantu has never been more satisfied than he is to-day. This applies to the homelands as well as the urban areas. I know what I am speaking of because I come into daily contact with these people during the recess. For the benefit of the hon. member for Houghton I want to say that we employ a much smaller number of police in this country per 1,000 of our population than is being employed even in England, and most definitely a much smaller number than is employed in America. Does that give the impression that people are being suppressed—people who are on the point of staging a revolution, as the hon. member for Houghton and hon. members opposite wanted to make out here this morning and this afternoon—and that we are sitting on a time bomb? They were talking the biggest nonsense in the world. I just, want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that there is no need whatsoever for a commission of inquiry. The Department deals with these matters daily; we have these matters investigated every day. From time to time; we have a departmental committee for the investigation of these laws so as to make their administration more streamlined and to facilitate their implementation, because this is no easy task. I cannot see what a judicial commission will be able to do about this. The position is improving all the time and there is absolutely no reason for the appointment of a commission. A condition of peace prevails amongst the people. This is better than it has ever been before, and if ever there was a time when it was unreasonable to ask for a judicial commission of inquiry, it is now.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said that they had opposed the removal of the Bantu from Sophiatown on one ground only, and that was because the Bantu in Sophiatown would lose his right of ownership. I want to tell him, as I have told the hon. member for Mooi River, that that is absolutely untrue. They opposed that in principle. Here in front of me I have the Hansard report. Here is the amendment moved by them. They opposed the removal in principle. They said the only thing to be done there was for a slum clearance scheme to be instituted; the Bantu had to remain there; they did not want to allow the removal of the Bantu from Sophiatown: the Bantu had to remain in Sophiatown and Martindale, intermingled with the white people. Shaking his head will not help the hon. member; here is the Hansard report. At that time he was a member of the Johannesburg City Council. They were not concerned about the question of freehold; they opposed the removal of the Bantu from those areas of Johannesburg in principle and they know that this is so.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Houghton. I just want to tell her that I might have done her an injustice this morning when I told her that she was an enemy of South Africa. No. I do not believe she is an enemy of South Africa, but I want to tell her this: She is an enemy of the white man in South Africa …

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

That too is nonsense.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

… and she is a great friend of South Africa provided South Africa is under a black government, and this is what was said by her leader in this House. Sir, it is a very long time since I have listened to a more distorted picture being presented of the position in South Africa than that presented by her this morning. Our biggest enemy at U.N. can take lessons from her. I have not the slightest doubt that her speech is on U Thant’s table already. He will read it with great relish. She ought to be ashamed of herself for having presented this false picture here this morning and for having tried to paint a totally wrong picture here of the true position in the homelands and in our white urban residential areas. I reject her motion with the contempt it deserves. Her difficulty and that of her Party is that they are becoming the most frustrated people in South Africa, and they are becoming that because the Whites have stopped listening to them and because the Bantu are at present following suit. Her small audience is becoming smaller and smaller and smaller and that is why she has been more bitter this year than she has ever been before in this House. She came here with a book giving an exposition of all the laws and said these laws had been made against the Bantu and that that was wrong. I want to tell her that everyone of these laws was not made against the Bantu but for the protection of the Bantu. What is the alternative? What is her alternative? Her alternative is the total abolition of influx control. Does she deny that?

*Mr. G. P. C. BEZUIDENHOUT:

Free movement.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes, she wants free movement. But this is something we have already had in South Africa after the war when statutory provision for influx control was in fact on the Statute Book but when influx control had ceased to exist for all practical purposes. And what was the result? The result was unemployment on a fantastic scale, shanty towns and slum conditions without precedent in the history of this country. She wants free entry for the people and the abolition of influx control. Sir, if one were to allow this one would experience the biggest chaos imaginable on the Witwatersrand, in the Vaal Triangle and here in the Western Cape and everywhere in this country, slum conditions of the worst degree. And who would be the victims of that? Not the Whites. We can look after ourselves. We have proper housing. The Bantu would be the principal victims of that. Wages would decrease; there would be no housing for these people; one would find unfair competition; one would experience a simply inconceivably chaotic condition. This one now has to accept from an intelligent woman like the hon. member for Houghton! This is her alternative to the position we have to-day, which is a reasonably orderly one. Sir, I am the last person to say that we are all satisfied that these things are working as they should. Here we are dealing with a tremendously complicated problem, but when one is dealing with a complicated problem such as this, one must, after all, consider the alternatives; one has to look at the present position and see how one may improve that. Is there anybody in this country, except somebody who is, politically speaking, bereft of his senses, who will say that we must throw open the doors of the urban areas and must simply allow the Bantu to stream in? Surely the hon. member knows that that will create the biggest chaos and will give rise to the severest disasters.

I now come to the Opposition and I want to begin with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), who had such a great deal to say here about the disintegration of families. Is it the policy of his Party that every Bantu worker who comes to the urban areas has to bring his family along with him?

*Maj. J. E. LINDSAY:

You have asked that question before and we have given you the reply.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I have already asked that question a hundred times and I shall do so a thousand times more. Let the hon. member for King William’s Town, who is so noisy at the moment, tell me this: Should every Bantu who comes from the Transkei to Cape Town bring his family along with him?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

What is the position on your farm?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I am not speaking about my farm. I am asking whether the Bantu who comes to Johannesburg should have the right, according to the policy of the United Party, to bring his family along with him?

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

Not all of them.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The hon. member for Orange Grove says: “Not all of them.” In other words, the families may become disintegrated. Perhaps he will select his favourite Bantu and tell him that he may bring his wife along with him, but that the other may not bring their wives along with them. Does one have to listen to such nonsense? Sir, they want exactly the same thing as we do. They also refuse, but at the same time they adopt a holier-than-thou attitude. The hon. member for Mooi River adopted a holier-than-thou attitude here with regard to the disintegration of families while the same thing will happen under their policy. Let me ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) whether the Bantu should bring their families along with them to the cities? What is the policy of the United Party?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

We have often explained our policy to you.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Sir, I can still have a little sympathy with the hon. member for Houghton because she wants the take-over of this country by the black people, but hon. members of the United Party are the ones who speak of “white leadership with justice”; they are the ones who speak of an undivided country that must always remain under white control. Therefore they are the ones who have to supply the answer. They refuse to give us an answer because they are not honest as far as their policy is concerned. I now accuse the United Party that their policy is— and I am going to say this in Pretoria (West) —that every Bantu who comes to Pretoria should be able to bring his family along with him, and then Pretoria will become a black city and Johannesburg will become a black city I shall tell this to the people in Pretoria, and then hon. members of the United Party must not open their mouths here about families who are going to be removed. We on this side say that the families may not come into the white urban areas.

*Mr. E. G. MALAN:

On your farm.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

My farm is not Johannesburg. If things were going as smoothly on the farm of that hon. member as they are going on my farm he too would have something of which he could be proud.

Then I want to say a few words about the system of migratory labour. The hon. member as well as the United Party had a great deal to say against the system of migratory labour. When did they realize that migratory labour was something so wrong? For 60 years, under the Botha regime, under the Smuts regime, under the Hertzog regime, and then again under the Smuts regime, our goldmining industry was being developed on the system of migratory labour. They became wealthy from and enriched themselves on the system of migratory labour and never did we hear a single word of objection to that system of migratory labour. Sir, these migratory labourers do not come from places 200 or 300 miles away. [Interjections.] A large number of these foreign Bantu may live away from their wives. This is the moral standard of that hon. member. As long as a Bantu is a foreign Bantu he may live in sin. Is this the moral standard of the hon. member for Orange Grove? That foreign Bantu does not remain here for six or nine months; he remains here for up to two year, but not a word is said about the disintegration of families. As long as Harry can make money, they are not in the least concerned about family life.

Sir, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

*An HON. MEMBER:

The hon. member for Brakpan. Apologize to him.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Not only do I apologize to the hon. member for Brakpan, but I want to say that I have never known a man who has had to suffer so many injustices in South Africa on account of his surname than the hon. member for Brakpan has to suffer in this House. I want to tell him that I share in his view that as far as our future pattern is concerned, we shall have to rely on migratory labour to an increasing extent.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Terrible!

*An HON. MEMBER:

Will you tell that to the farmers too?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes, I shall tell this to the farmers too. To a large extent the sting has been removed from the system of migratory labour. The hon. member for Brakpan made certain suggestions and I just want to say that we are investigating these matters. We have negotiated with the Railways; we have negotiated with Putco and these people. The Railways assure us that they can provide transport for a Bantu over a distance of 200 miles over a week-end and back again at a fare of R3.25 each, and Putco can do it for even less. We are therefore approaching a stage when all the migratory labourers in the urban areas will be able to pay regular return visits to their homes and their families, and consequently I say that the sting has been removed from the system of migratory labour to a large extent. I shall advocate this and I shall fight for our labour pattern in South Africa to be based on a system of migratory labour to an increasing extent. That is why we have influx control. What is England doing? It is keeping its own citizens from England— the Indians from Kenya who hold British passports. What is that but influx control? Why is this being done? In order to prevent a social problem in England. But the hon. member for Houghton does not object to that, but when we want to do the same thing in the Republic of South Africa, we are great sinners. This is the sacrosanct attitude of that hon. member, but let me tell her that I would not give sixpence for her political morality, and I do not believe most of the stories she tells here. I do not believe she is serious, and if she is serious she is not as intelligent as I thought she was.

There are complaints to-day about the disintegration of families. I want to furnish some figures as regards the ratio of Bantu males to Bantu females in Johannesburg over the years. In 1911 this cruel Government with its apartheid policy was not in power. At that time the progressive and moral and humane English were in power; that was shortly after their rule came to an end in South Africa. At that time one had 2,240 Bantu males for every Bantu female in Johannesburg and the Anglican Church was as quiet as a churchmouse. In 1921, when General Smuts came into power, one had 771 Bantu males for every Bantu female in Johannesburg. Did we then hear a fuss being made about the disintegration of families? [Interjections.] It makes no difference whether industrialization took place later. The morality of the matter remains exactly the same. In 1936 one had 273 and at present one has 100 Bantu females for 103 Bantu males, a situation which I do not welcome, but in the history of South Africa there has never been less family disintegration than there is at present.

Now I come to the question of crime. Where do the stories come from that crime has increased so tremendously? The Police reports do not indicate that. The hon. member spoke of a crime wave. The crime figures in South Africa do not compare badly with those in other countries, and those are homogeneous countries. Who told the hon. member for Mooi River that the crime figure was increasing to such a fantastic extent, and that we were experiencing such an uncontrollable crime wave in South Africa? Take statutory crimes. They simply have to consult the Police reports.

*Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Are you satisfied with the figures?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Of course not. We are trying to improve the position every day. Of course we are not satisfied with it. During December, as compared to November, crime decreased in number by more than 750,000 as a result of registration and the provision of documents. Under the Bantu Urban Areas Consolidation Act crime has decreased by 4,500. The only figures which have shown an increase relate to the collection of Bantu taxes. This is so because we are taking stricter action against the Bantu as regards payment of taxes, and I wholeheartedly agree with this. The figures in connection with the illegal possession of Bantu beer decreased tremendously. Who told the hon. member that these figures had increased so tremendously? The position as regards crime amongst the Bantu in South Africa is serious, but in comparison with other countries it is not in the least out of proportion. Why say that we are experiencing a wave of violence. This is simply not true. But that is what we would have if the policy of those hon. members and that hon. lady were to be implemented in South Africa.

Then we have the question of economic opportunity; it is being alleged that the Bantu finds himself in an ever-deteriorating position economically. I am not even going to quote from our reports; I am going to quote from the widely praised report, the Forward Planning Report of Mr. Carr, and the following are the wages paid to Bantu in the factories. In 1946 it was R200 per annum, in 1960-’61 R370 per annum, and in the year 1964 R456 per annum, an increase exceeding 150 per cent. We know that the cost of living did not increase by 150 per cent, but rentals for housing for the Bantu, with the exception of Johannesburg and Brakpan, have remained constant, and their transport costs have remained constant for the past 15 years. Therefore the economic position of the Bantu has improved considerably.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN:

Is it a living wage?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes, figures quoted by the hon. member for Houghton the other day which indicated that they were R11 below the poverty datum line, related to one bread-winner, and we all know that the Bantu’s economic employment is 1 to 3.4 in other words, every family has from 1.9 to 2.3 Bantu having an income. This puts them far above the poverty datum line, and those figures of hers are completely unrealistic. [Interjections.]

*Mr. SPEAKER:

Order! The speech of the hon. member for Houghton does not run from the beginning to the end of this debate.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

I want to conclude by referring to the question of education about which she also complained. Let us take the figures for 1957 and 1967, a period of ten years. In 1957 there were 630 primary schools. In 1967 there were 985. Post-primary schools or divisions totalled 69 in 1957 and the present figure is 132. In 1957 there were 5,254 teachers in primary schools and in 1967 there were 9,020. But they maintain that we have not done anything. In 1957 there were 280,000 pupils and in 1967 there were 640,000. There were 620 post-primary teachers in 1957 and 835 in 1967. Not one of us is saying that we are satisfied with the position, but we are practical people after all. This is not enough, but it is a thousand times better than it was when those hon. members were in power. It illustrates the progress that has been made. We have made fantastic progress over the past years. But they do not look at the progress we have made and they do not paint a fair picture for the outside world by saying, “We are faced with a difficult problem, but this is the progress we have made. These are the improvements we have brought about as regards housing, education and wages”. Surely this is the right picture to present and let the world then criticize us on the basis of that picture. But this is not the picture they present. They maintain that we are sitting on a volcano; we are involved in a revolution here and there is suppression; the people are starving, there is no housing for them and they are being taken away from their families and the position is worse than that which existed prior to the French Revolution. I say that anyone who is capable of presenting a picture like that is not only morally dishonest, but in the case of that hon. member it is intellectually as dishonest.

Debate having continued for 2½ hours, motion lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 32.

ROLE PLAYED BY SMALL ENTREPRENEURS *Mr. J. C. GREYLING:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That this House expresses its appreciation of the important role played by the small businessman, the small mineral prospector and miner and the small farmer in the development of the Republic of South Africa, and affirms its conviction that the survival of these small entrepreneurs will continue to be of importance to the Republic.

In this regard I want to address a request to the Government. Based on what I am going to say, I am asking for a thorough-going scientific inquiry, on a national level, into the importance and the problems of the small entrepreneur in our national economy, with special reference to (1) such direct or indirect financial aid in connection with guidance as may be necessary; and (2) the role played by major financially strong corporations with their particular patterns of operation, high liquidity, substantial cash resources, particular investment policy and their particular tax evasion techniques, and how such corporations affect the subsistence possibilities of the small entrepreneurs as an essential active economic factor in the maintenance of a sound and balanced economy.

The time has arrived for the State to formulate a more definite policy in regard to the role and the importance of the small entrepreneurs in our national economy. At present there is already enough evidence of disquiet, uncertainty and fear that in all spheres the small entrepreneurs will eventually be eliminated by major capital corporations and power groups. On 21st February, 1964, this very same problem was discussed in this House with reference to a motion introduced by the hon. member for Vereeniging, at present the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. This was followed by a motion introduced by the hon. member for Orange Grove, a motion that was worded better than all his motions on television. In fact, when the hon. member for Vereeniging introduced his motion in 1964, he conceded that the hon. member for Orange Grove’s motion was worded better than his own. I should like to read out this motion to the House. It was as follows—

That, as the prosperity and economic stability of the small businessman and independent entrepreneur are essential to the country’s welfare and the maintenance of the system of free enterprise, this House requests the Government to consider the advisibility of appointing a commission of inquiry into the problems of the small and medium-sized businessman with a view to recommending such measures as may be necessary to ensure that he will continue to play an essential part in our economy.

In October, 1962, the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council advised the Prime Minister and expressed misgivings to the effect that the small entrepreneurs in South Africa were in difficulties and were in fact experiencing a crisis. They pointed to the importance of the small entrepreneurs for the welfare of the country and asked that special attention be devoted to preventing the small entrepreneurs from going under. Subsequently concern was expressed at several conferences in South Africa in regard to the trade crisis which had arisen as a result of the entry of major capital interests in the field of distribution. Such a conference was held in Bloemfontein in 1964. However, no thorough-going inquiry was made into this crisis in the distributive trade by either the Government or the private sector. There was in fact a commission of inquiry into trade licensing and incidental matters in 1964, under the chairmanship of Mr. Prinsloo, but that commission was not specifically instructed to inquire into the threat to the small entrepreneurs as a result of the new trends which were developing. Admittedly, that commission did devote a few chapters to that topic, arising out of the evidence which had been submitted to it in regard to this problem. On reading through that report, one finds that between 1952 and 1960 as much as R97 million of the R360.1 million increase in the total retail turnover, i.e. 26.9 per cent, went to only ten major retailers. It cannot be disputed that those ten major retailers have international connections. In 1952 there were six of these major retailers, these capital corporations which had entered the field of the distributive trade. Each of them had a turnover of more than R5 million. In 1960 ten of them had a turnover of more than R5 million per annum each. In 1952 they had 307 branches and in 1960. 484. In 1952 the turnover of those ten major capital distribution entrepreneurs amounted to R96.2 million, whereas in 1965 it amounted to R193 million. In the report of the commission of inquiry into trade licensing and incidental matters, these particulars become clearly apparent.

The concern, the fear, the disquiet that exists in the minds of the commercial sector, the small entrepreneurs, as expressed at conferences and reflected in motions in this House, and as voiced before commissions of inquiry, is adequate proof that those problems really exist. Those phenomena lent backing and support to my request as I put it to the Government when I began to set out my argument.

It is not only in South Africa that this phenomenon occurs. In other countries steps have already been taken to assist and support the small entrepreneurs in the face of the squeeze and the pressure the major capital corporations are applying to them. In America, where this development has advanced much further and has assumed a monopolistic character and monopolistic tendencies, the Sherman and the Clayton Laws have been passed in an attempt to counter these monopolistic practices. These practices have resulted from the hold major capital corporations have obtained on commerce owing to their liquid funds and their large cash resources. But these measures appeared to be ineffective. Other countries, for instance Canada and Holland, took certain steps to lend financial support to the small entrepreneurs. They took direct steps by way of legislation and direct loans. They also took indirect steps by way of legislation in terms of which the State provided the small entrepreneurs with guarantees for losses which financial institutions might suffer if they financed small entrepreneurs. Other attempts have also been made by way Of legislation to assist the small man. Certain bodies were established for the purpose of backing and assisting the small entrepreneur by way of guidance—combined with direct and indirect aid—to hold their own in the face of the onslaught of the major capital corporations.

On the grounds of what has been experienced abroad and what has been attempted there by way of legislation, on the grounds of what has been said and done and is being accepted here, sufficient evidence does therefore exist to confirm the problem and the crisis with which the small entrepreneurs are faced in South Africa. In addition there is information which indisputably and clearly points to an extension of the field of investment of major capital corporations to those fields where the small entrepreneurs have always been active economically and capable of holding their own. In the past major capital interests have applied in South Africa various forms of investment practices and techniques. All of us probably know that a certain major capital corporation in South Africa exercises control over 918 companies. They obviously, as is apparent to us to-day, began with our raw materials. They concentrated on gold, iron, coal, diamonds, and many other raw materials, too many to mention, and after they had consolidated and ensconced themselves in that field, they entered the field of propaganda, and to-day a great many of our newspapers are controlled by major capital corporations. Over the past few years these trends have become clearly visible, namely that they are now entering those fields which are the most labour-intensive. I am referring to the manufacturing industry, the construction industry and the service industry. I want to quote a few figures in this respect. From September, 1963, to December, 1963—after one major capital corporation in the Republic had established a company which was to concern itself with investments in the manufacturing industry, the construction industry and the service industry—that company obtained shares and interests in or control of 350 companies in South Africa. Hon. members will probably agree with me that these industries—the manufacturing industry, the construction industry and our service industries—are the most labour-absorptive ones. The greatest inflow of labour is towards these industries. If one studies the data furnished by the Bureau of Statistics and if one looks at a survey made by the Department of Planning, a survey of the anticipated demand for labour from 1965 to 1971, one realizes that these things confirm what I am saying here to-day. I shall now furnish the relevant figures.

Between 1960 and 1965 the increase in the white labour force employed in the manufacturing industry, the service industries and construction industries, amounted to exactly 100 per cent. In agriculture it was nil—in fact, it showed a decrease. As regards the non-Whites, the corresponding increase was 65 per cent. According to an estimate made by the Department of Planning, the increase in the non-white labour force in the manufacturing industry, the construction sphere and in the service industries will, over the period 1965 to 1971, be in the vicinity of 220,000.

This new trend, i.e. the fact that major capital corporations in South Africa are entering a new field of investment, disturbs us tremendously. In the past the small entrepreneurs were active in these fields; here they were active economically and had a niche of their own. Now the major capital corporations are entering this field as well. Those of us who believe that private enterprise should be practised by the largest number of independent individuals in a country, are most decidedly alarmed at this development. I want to furnish a few figures. The control one major capital corporation in South Africa has, is as follows: In the field of mining it controls 223 companies. I am only referring to labour-intensive industries. In the field of prospecting and development it controls 28 companies; in the iron, steel and engineering industries: 160 companies; cement: 11 companies; alloys: 5 companies; building construction and allied industries: 26 companies; paint: 4 companies; fertilizer: 2 companies; food and sugar: 62 companies; liquor: 62 companies; textiles: 13 companies; plastics: 8 companies; chemicals: 8 companies; agriculture and forestry: 19 companies; and miscellaneous: 85 companies. We find therefore that one major capital corporation in South Africa has direct or indirect control of or influences 716 labour-intensive industries in our country. The other industries, i.e. the difference between 900 and 716, are not labour-intensive.

The amount of room for the small entrepreneurs is becoming smaller. They are steadily being confined to a smaller sphere in our economy. These capital corporations are increasing their funds and their liquidity year by year, and their strangle-hold on the small entrepreneurs is becoming tighter and tighter. With their high liquidity and availability of ready capital funds, they are entering the fields in which the small entrepreneurs have had a niche in the past and could still hold their own. But a definite picture reveals itself if we inquire into the pattern of operation, the investment policy and the tax evasion techniques which are being applied in South Africa by these major capital corporations—and I am referring to one only. I want to start mentioning them. In the main they obtain their funds as a result of disproportionate capital mobilization. And I want to mention an example. You will recall how low the shares dropped on the day the Sharpeville incident took place. Do you know what the profit was, Sir? Anybody may look this up, if he wants to spend a little time, in the annual reports of the Registrar of Companies. The profit they made in one year …

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Who are they?

*Mr. J. C. GREYLING:

Wait a moment, I am coming to that. The profit they made in one year on share appreciation, i.e. owing to the fact that such shares had been bought in at a low figure and subsequently increased in value until they reached the normal level, was R30 million. That was in one year. It was tax-free. Not a tickey’s or a penny’s worth of tax was paid on that amount, since the Income Tax Act provides that dividends accruing to a company are tax-free. The small entrepreneurs, the private person, has to pay a tax of 72.1 per cent on his earnings in excess of the amount of R18,000 calculated on a progressive scale. I say that this is unfair. This is not just. They are enriching themselves. Worst of all is that that R30 million that was earned in one year through share manipulation and through the fact that they had at their disposal liquid cash funds they had accumulated, amounts to nothing but stealing from the public. If one earns money without working and if a company experiences appreciation without productivity being involved, then one impoverishes those people from whom one obtains it. That is not real appreciation in terms of productive labour. I want to mention another example. From 1956 to 1960 four companies in South Africa made a profit of R390 million, solely as a result of capital share appreciation. No tax was paid on that. As a result high liquidity and high security value developed which enabled them to evade the measures the Government had taken against inflation—all the monetary measures—and virtually to act as a bank and a money-lender within our state. That is something which worries me. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Government to effect a change in this regard. This system of taxation is discriminating, because in a skilful manner—owing to their particular pattern of operation in terms of which there is manoeuvring by a number of companies—they evade and avoid the principle on which the Income Tax Act is founded, namely the assumption that all dividends that are being paid out will eventually land in the hands of the shareholders, and that because of the tax paid by the shareholders the State will receive its rightful share. There were six companies in South Africa which carried on business under the umbrella of one major parent capital corporation and in which direct and indirect interests were involved. In ten years’ time those six companies held back dividends, which were not paid out to the public, to the value of almost R90 million. No tax was paid on that. That served to strengthen their liquid funds and when they had these funds at their disposal, their absorptive capacity was increased so as to absorb and gradually take over the small entrepreneurs in the distributive trade and in the manufacturing sector, on which they are now concentrating their investment policy. These things alarm us. They can only lead to one thing, and that is that the small entrepreneurs in South Africa will eventually be eliminated. They must disappear. They cannot hold their own against millions with the power to apply price discrimination from region to region; with the power to force a manufacturing industry to sell its total production at a discriminating price; with the power to force the manufacturing industries to discriminate between the price they charge the person who buys in bulk and the retailer who has to buy a few dozen at a time. This increase in funds, this increase of capital liquidity, this tightening of the hold of the major capital corporations in South Africa, has become a factor to which we must pay serious attention. I say this here to-day in all sincerity. In the Financial Gazette dated 3rd February, 1967, there is an article by Professor Lombard in which he says a few things about this tax evasion technique by means of which funds are accumulated, the absorption capacity is increased and the retail entrepreneurs are forced to capitulate. He says—

Income tax is consequently avoided by the practice of distributing only a part, often a minor part of company profits to shareholders. And shareholders are also educated by current growth propaganda to take their profit from selling their shares at their increased market values rather than expecting high yields on their investments.

There are, therefore, the suspicion, data and evidence—which can be ascertained by means of such a scientific inquiry on a national level, as I requested—that, as a result of their particular pattern of operation, their tax evasion techniques, their investment policy and the unobtrusive concealment of their profits, major capital corporations in South Africa are increasing their influence in South Africa which will eventually eliminate the small private entrepreneurs from our economy. It will be a bad day when the small entrepreneurs in South Africa must disappear. They are essential in the development in the Republic of South Africa. These small entrepreneurs have played a major role through their social services, free services, participation in the points of growth as they arose one after the other in a developing country such as the Republic, through the cultural functions they performed and through their granting of credit. There was not one single women’s organization, agricultural organization or school which did not receive positive support from these small entrepreneurs which initially struggled to make a living but gradually developed along with the community. But walk around in any town to-day and try to collect funds for a school or for educational purposes. Then one is told: I am very sorry, sir, but my head-office is in Durban, Cape Town or Johannesburg. Please write a letter to them and ask them for a contribution. This social and cultural function that was performed by the small entrepreneurs in South Africa cannot be measured in terms of money. They formed a pillar, a local pillar on which society was founded. But these small entrepreneurs also formed the shock absorber between the two major conflicting forces which must eventually develop in a capitalistic State in the process of eliminating small entrepreneurs. These forces are the State as a capitalist on the one hand— as a major supplier of capital—and the major capital corporations on the other hand. And if you were to ask me why the Labour Party in South Africa could never make any progress and disappeared from the scene, I would attribute it to these small entrepreneurs who treated their employees in their own way, who were able to bargain more easily and who did not build up major concentrations of manpower that they could use for political purposes. After all, we have gained experience. Take the history of our gold mines. Since 1922 up to the present stage there has never been calm between employees and employers in our gold-mining industry. That is so because the capital corporations and the capital power are continually interfering in politics, making use of their capital power. The history of our fatherland cannot be recorded without mentioning the role played by major capital interests in our political history. These small entrepreneurs, the individuals, the partnerships, the less moneyed entrepreneurs—be they traders, small farmers or factory men—have served as a buffer throughout our history. They were in a position to bargain. They had personal ties with their employees. They are the people who did not concentrate labour. They did not have at their disposal funds to be utilized for the purposes of some political party or other. I remember very well how in years gone by one moneyed person provided the “Trust Fund”—for the purpose of interfering in our policy. But we have examples of the Russian Revolution. Bring me an example taken from world history where major capital interests played a more important role than was the case in the Russian Revolution of 1917. The tragedy is that it is indisputable —according to evidence I have here before me—that major capital corporations in South Africa have connections with international shareholders and international capitalism. They live on riots and they make their money, not through labour productivity, but according to a disproportionate mobilization technique of our capital, at the expense of the public. Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to insist on a disclosure of who the share-holders in these major capital organizations and corporations in South Africa are, who their nominees are, what companies are under their control, and to insist on their whole capital and their whole contractual structure being exposed. The nation is entitled to know that, because here a process is taking place which is undermining one of the essential factors for the maintenance of a sound national economy, namely the major concentration of capital in any capitalistic country. Where a concentration and control of major capital interests are to be found, there is a concentration of labour as well. Once the small entrepreneurs have been eliminated, the labourers become a factor of political bargaining. We have seen that throughout the world. Who is the labourer going to choose? They choose the State to protect them. We have examples of that in our history. The history of the Afrikaner nation is a fine example of the protection against foreign domination they sought from the State. That is why our entire system of education is controlled by the State and why not one single private school developed amongst the Afrikaners. That was why Mr. Wilson in Britain—just imagine, that super-democratic capitalistic state in the free Western world—had to yield under the pressure brought to bear by the labourers with their votes, and he had to apply nationalization of some of his key industries. That is a desperate attempt on the part of the State to resist the further capital growth of the major capital corporation. Once one has undermined the influence, the financial strength and the niche of the small entrepreneurs in the economy to that extent, there is only one alternative for a country: The labourers will force it to take such steps, because the workers will always prefer the State to the moneyed employers. Our history is full of examples of that nature. Then one has the major insistence on nationalization. “Through my State I want a share in what you as a major moneyed individual possess.” Then one would hear that side and the people crying out against socialism. Then they would say that it is a socialising process that is taking place. What are the true facts in our country to-day? At present public capital is being mobilized in South Africa by either the State with its State institutions Such as Foskor, Sasol, Iscor, and so forth, or, on the other hand, the major, powerful capital corporations which at this particular stage—at which the Republic of South Africa is engaged in a major economic emancipation process, a process which is developing incredibly—are developing into major forces in South Africa. Who are they? They are the capital powers and the State which, in its attempts at imposing restrictions on them, is mobilizing its institutions in the form of utility companies. And the small entrepreneurs find themselves between these two forces, and they will be ground to dust.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude. The small entrepreneurs will not survive this struggle, this onslaught. The time has arrived for us to formulate a definite policy in which attention should also be paid to the social and political importance of these entrepreneurs, but especially, in the interests of maintaining a sound national economy, to assisting these small entrepreneurs to hold their own. I did not discuss the small farmers. My hon. friend who will speak after me, will do so. Nor did I discuss the small mineral prospector and miner. Another colleague of mine will do so.

But I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker. I have made a thorough study of this whole pattern which is developing in our country. I have also made a study of how countries abroad are combating it. I have come to one conclusion, namely that we in South Africa, with our heterogeneous population, with our particular problems, are tied down to the inexorable prerequisite that we must have our own system, just as we have worked out our colour policy —peculiar to ourselves and different from the rest of the world. We shall also have to do so in South Africa, in the interests of South Africa. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. C. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I have a very limited time available, and therefore I cannot deal with all the points raised by the introducer of this motion. May I say, first of all, that we on this side are in general agreement with the motion. I agree with a lot of what the hon. member for Carletonville has said, but I do not agree with it all.

Among the points that he dealt with, was the question of profits on the Stock Exchange. The hon. member did not use the words, but he seems to me to be coming very near to advocating something like a capital gains tax. I hope that was not in his mind, because there could be few things more damaging to a growing country in need of capital than a capital gains tax. I have said that we are in general agreement with this motion, but to us it appears to be rather anaemic; it is merely an expression of opinion. I think that there is a danger that the Minister may pigeonhole it, or perhaps even worse: He might consign the hon. member for Carletonville’s motion down a sinkhole.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked for a comprehensive inquiry into this problem, and I think we on this side of the House agree with him that it will be very interesting indeed if, as a result of such an inquiry, it became known who controls so many of these big corporations that he was talking about. There have been inquiries in the past, as the hon. member has mentioned, and we feel that there is a lot that this Government can do to control this situation which he has dealt with this afternoon. Therefore, because we feel that there is need for action, and we want to put some flesh on the bare bones of this motion I wish, Mr. Speaker, to move an amendment—

To add at the end: “In the circumstances, this House urgently requests the Government to consider the advisability of stimulating the economic progress of these entrepreneurs.”.

Mr. Speaker, there are two distinct problems arising from two contrasting causes. Both of these problems are the by-products of the very rapid industrialization which is taking place in this country.

There is firstly the problem of the small businessman in our cities and large towns, who is being squeezed out by bigger competitors amidst conditions of general urban prosperity. Then there is secondly the problem which the hon. gentleman did not deal with; he said that it was going to be dealt with by one of his colleagues. I refer to the small farmers who have been, and are, leaving the farms in steady numbers, because of the conditions in the agricultural industry, which are depressed relative to conditions in other sectors of the economy. Because of this drift from the farms (that is of Whites from the farms), the small businessman and the small entrepreneur on the platteland is battling. He is losing his customers, who are going off to the big cities.

As regards the first problem, namely the disappearance of the small entrepreneur in our cities, there is, as the hon. member mentioned, a general tendency in modern Western industrialized countries for commercial and industrial concerns to grow bigger and bigger. They are able to operate efficiently and at low cost, because they can take advantage of “economies of scale”, economies consequent upon the large scale of their operations. Control of a whole industry, particularly in the capital intensive industries, becomes concentrated in the hands of a few individuals who, through a system of interlocking companies, build up commercial and industrial empires. The earlier and more rapid the industrial development of the country concerned, the sooner do the dangers and the abuses flowing from this concentration of power, become apparent. In the United States of America, for example, which is the industrial leader in the Western world, it is not surprising that they have been among the first to try and limit by legislation, through their anti-trust Acts that the hon. member mentioned, these abuses of monopoly power.

We are seeing the same process at work here in South Africa as we industrialize. We are seeing the growth of large enterprises, the elimination of the small operator by takeover bids and other means. We are seeing vertical and horizontal integration in industries and the growth of monopolies. This House, of course, legislated against monopolies by passing the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act in 1955, under which the Board of Trade and Industries can investigate industries in which it is suspected that restrictive trade practices are operating. But that Act was designed to control restrictive agreements as to retail price maintenance for example between one manufacturer and another, between the manufacturer, the wholesaler and the retailer. and between retailers themselves, and so on. But it was not designed primarily with a view to interfering with the sales or pricing policy of the individual manufacturer himself. We are a free enterprise country and, provided a firm does not enter into agreements with others to practise restrictive measures, it can do much as it likes. There is indeed little danger in this, as long as there are a large number of independent firms providing competition in the industry.

The danger comes when we reach a position where a few very large firms dominate the industry. This is something for the Government to watch very carefully indeed, particularly in essential sectors of the economy, such as the food industry. I say that we have reached a potentially dangerous position when there is what obtains in, for example, the milling industry to-day. That is an efficient industry whose efficiency has helped indeed to keep down the cost of bread, but it is an industry dominated by four large firms, the largest of which is virtually controlled by a foreigner. The Government must guard against the danger that temporary cuts in prices may, in the long run, lead to higher prices for the consumer. We have seen very recently one or two spectacular price wars, for example in the field of electrical appliances. It would be a tragedy for the consumer if those price wars were to lead to the elimination of the small trader who, because of his limited financial resources, is more vulnerable when anti-inflationary measures such as the credit squeeze are applied. It would also be a tragedy if they were to lead to reduced competition and ultimately to consumer prices higher than those before the price war. The chain store and the supermarket most certainly have their place in our economy but just as certainly the small trader and small dealer has his place.

In the rural areas we see a very different position indeed. There the disappearance of the small farmer has set off a chain reaction. Faced with indifferent prices for his produce and rising production costs, the small farmer has been unable to withstand the threats to his enterprise from nature, such as drought. He has also not been able to withstand the economic pressure arising from Government action, particularly the credit squeeze. He therefore sells his farm which is bought by his neighbour who buys it either as a hedge against inflation in an attempt to counter the erosive effects of a continuous depreciation in the value of money, or in an attempt to increase his own scale of operations, thereby lowering his unit costs of production, in an attempt to make a profit. That small farmer then retires to a big city, to some coastal resort or, perhaps, even to the local small town. But even if he himself settles in that small town, his children are lost to the platteland forever. They go to the city because the family farm has been sold and because there are no employment opportunities for them in the small town. The Government expects this trend to continue. The economic development programme for 1966 to 1971, for example, released by the hon. the Minister’s department, forecasts that the number of Whites in agriculture which stood at 109,600 in 1965 will fall to 96,200 by 1971. The overall figures for agriculture as a whole conceal an even more serious state of affairs in certain specific areas of the country which industrial development and the boom have passed by. One such area is the midlands of the Eastern Cape. In 1946 the Port Elizabeth metropolitan area had a white population of approximately 69,000 people. The 21 districts of the hinterland of that city, namely the districts of the Cape midlands, had an almost equal white population. By 1960 the white population of Port Elizabeth had grown by 30,000 but the white population of those 21 country districts had decreased by 3,000. Even within those 21 districts the picture is not uniform. The larger of the smaller towns have more or less held their own during that time but the really small towns have suffered even more. In the particular district in which I farm, the white population of the town and the district as a whole has dropped by some 45 per cent in the past 25 years prior to 1967.

No town can afford to lose almost half its population over a comparatively short period. The effects of this on the small businessmen in such towns have been disastrous. It is true that the drop in numbers of Whites has been more than offset, numberwise, by a rise in the number of non-Whites. For the country as a whole the economic development programme forecasts a rise in the number of non-Whites engaged in agriculture from 1,739,400 in 1965 to 1,915,400 in 1971. In nine of the 21 districts I have mentioned the ratio of White to non-White was one to six in 1946. By 1960 it was one to eight. Since then the position has got even worse. It is quite true that non-Whites are consumers and buyers just as the Whites are, but their earnings generally speaking, and therefore their purchasing power, are much lower. What then has happened to the shopkeeper, the garage owner and the bioscope proprietor in those small towns? Their takings drop and they become a poor business risk in times of financial stringency, such as the present credit squeeze. The bank manager cuts their overdrafts and so they cut their stocks. The farmer, unable to buy the selection of goods he wants from their reduced stocks, begins to buy in the nearest large town. This cuts their turnover further and eventually they go out of business. They themselves then drift off to work for a big firm in a big town. The result of all this is that the small town has lost another family. The baker, the butcher and every other small businessman in that small town has lost another customer, and so the process of decay goes on.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this process by which the platteland is being denuded of its Whites, is highly undesirable. I believe that this is leading to a social imbalance in our society which is going to strike at the fundamental virtues and values on which we and our forefathers built this country. We know what the remedies are and it is up to the Government to apply them. It is time that the Government showed a consciousness particularly of what is happening to the small farmers in this country after the 20 years in which they have been in power, and the disastrous effects it is having on large areas of the Republic.

*Mr. H. SCHOEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Albany said a number of things in regard to which I share his opinion, but as so often happens he referred to the small farmer who leaves his farm and contributes to the depopulation of the rural areas. But nobody can differ from me when I say that the United Party does not have a solution to this problem either. It is an economic law which applies throughout the world. I shall furnish you with additional information later on which will enable you to see that you cannot link the Government with this depopulation. It is simply impossible to do so. If you do so you are not being practical or realistic. The House could see by the way in which the hon. member for Carletonville introduced his motion that he regarded it was a very serious matter to him. I want to confine myself to the small farmer of whom mention was made in the motion. I feel that the voice of the small farmer should also be heard in the councils of our country, and that we should have appreciation for him and for his contributions.

Very few of the hon. members would be able to define the term small farmer for me, but as a basis for my argument this afternoon I want to say that to my mind the small farmers are that 57 per cent of the farmers in our country whose gross income is less than R3,000 per annum. We must confine ourselves to those people who are humbly holding their own and standing on their own feet. When we talk about a small farmer our immediate reaction is to think that it is the man who is always in financial difficulties. In reality that is an injustice to these people, for how many of them do we not both know who are entirely independent of the State with their low turnover. So much is being done for the farmers, for example in respect of drought assistance, agricultural credit and other contributions being made by the State. But not everyone avails himself of this assistance, and those who do, have nothing to be ashamed of, because after all the idea is that some of them will ultimately recover from their financial difficulties. We find to-day that we want, and are making propaganda for, increasingly larger units. We find it nothing unusual to talk of farmers who are producing 200,000 bags of grain. We regard them as the super-farmers and forget about the man who is earning his living in the sweat of his brow. I have already told this House about an agricultural corporation with 588 members who are producing only mealies. Of those 588 members there is one man who is producing 21 per cent of that corporation’s mealies.

I find it disquieting that the situation is developing to such an extent that it is ultimately going to result in our depriving a man of the right and privilege to think for himself and placing it in the hands of a few men who think for the rest. This is one of the points we shall have to pay attention to in future. It is an indisputable fact that in 32 years’ time, and many of us will still be here then, we will have to produce food in this country for 40 million people. We are going to succeed in doing this. In America they are at present breeding a hybrid mealie the leaf structure of which is arranged in such a way that it can make full use of all available sunlight in order to respirate properly. This type of mealie will produce 600 bushels per acre. This is going to happen in our country as well, because we are going to provide everyone with food. If you look at the increase in production over the past 20 years you will see that there is no need to take fright. Even the United Party members in the Cape will still have porridge to eat. It all boils down to mass-production in every field.

I also differ from the hon. member for Albany when he states that the price of agricultural products throughout the world has not increased to the same extent as production costs have. This is simply not the case here. What is the solution to that and what advantages does it hold? It is that we are attempting to produce a greater yield per unit, and in that way one will be able to make up that difference. But that brings us back to the motion of the hon. member for Carletonville. The major producer is the man who is going to manage all right. The bargaining power of the big man in our country to-day once again gives him a few yards’ lead over the small producer. If he is the owner of a fleet, then he pays quite another price for spare parts than the man who has two or three tractors. He receives discount because he can pay cash, and he has other privileges as well. I admit that it is unfair competition. We are then inclined to say that that man is a small farmer, even if he is just as efficient, if not more so. Let us now consider the over-stocking of the market. Ten years ago we could talk of a poultry farmer with 1,000 hens. To-day he can simply go and whistle if he only has 1,000 hens. Take the barbecue chicken industry. There a cent profit is made on a barbecue chicken. There are some undertakings in our country that deal in millions of chickens. Then they make money. If one has 1,000 barbecue chickens at one cent profit each, then you will become bankrupt, as some people at whom I am looking are.

Another matter which I find ironic is this. In agriculture it is the case that the man who takes the risk is not always rewarded. For six months a man will plant and look after cotton under the most unpredictable weather conditions in the world, because there is not another country in the world with such an astonishing climate.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Except for politics.

*Mr. H. SCHOEMAN:

The only thing that is consistent here, is politics. In any case, after six months, who makes the money? Who manufactures that cotton shirt? Not the farmer. The other man makes the money, the man to whom the hon. member for Carletonville referred, and who is always becoming more powerful. I am not levelling reproaches at anybody because you can tell me that we can also manufacture cotton shirts if we had the initiative, but I want that we should view this matter in its correct perspective. Who is the man who presses oil out of oil-seeds? When money is to be made, the farmer is not in the running at all; it is the other man who makes the money. Hon. members may now ask: Why do they not do it on a co-operative basis; surely you can build up a powerful organization such as this by means of a corporative society? No, do you know what the position to-day is in regard to a corporative? The small producer is the loyal member of the corporative, but the magnates, the major manufacturers, find the major producers more attractive because there is only one transaction. The major manufacturer takes that man’s crop; there is only one negotiation; the goods are only graded once. The small men are the loyal members of the co-operative, and for that reason we must pay special tribute to them to-day under this motion. According to available figures 23 per cent of our population consisted of farmers in 1948; in 1966 14 per cent were farmers. Let me now point out the dangers, and here I want to quote from an article written by Prof. Tomlinson.

*Mr. D. M. STREICHER:

Do you deplore this?

*Mr. H. SCHOEMAN:

If the hon. member would only give me a chance, he would see that I am heartbroken about this. I should like to quote from an article by Prof. Tomlinson entitled “Agriculture in the South African National Economy” (translation)—

The commission of inquiry into white occupation of the rural areas stated the position as follows: “Seen from a sociological point of view as well it is essential therefore that there should be a relatively large white population in the rural areas. In any case the number should be large enough to allow the beneficial influence of the rural areas to be felt on the population as a whole.”

In South Africa however there is a second cause for concern in regard to the decrease in the white rural population. What is happening here is that, together with the decrease, the number of non-Whites, and particularly Bantu, on farms belonging to Whites is steadily increasing, and that in addition the numerical relationship in the rural areas outside the Bantu areas is changing in favour of the Bantu. The fear which arises from this numerical tendency was expressed as long ago as 1935 by Prof. Gross-kopf in the following phrase …

It is very important; it illustrates the Government’s policy of separate development, and it shows that we are correct in saying that the Bantu homelands must be developed.

“But inevitably—and the history of mankind has proved this over the ages—those who actually till the soil, ultimately become its owners.”

I wish hon. members would listen more attentively because this matter is very important—

It can be stated with a reasonable amount of certainty that it is this belief in particular which forms the basis in South Africa today of the idea that something has to be done to counteract the further white depopulation of the rural areas. The Population Commission states it in this way: “In a country with a homogeneous population the depopulation of the rural areas would not constitute serious dangers, but in this country with its heterogeneous elements the white population forms to a great extent the axis about which Western civilization revolves; if that axis breaks, the white civilization in the cities will, in the long run, not be able to maintain its position.

Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude. The faithful members of his farmers’ association is the small producer in the rural areas; the faithful member of the women’s charitable association is the small producer in the rural areas. The faithful member of his church, because he realizes his dependence, is the small producer in the rural areas. We are a nation which is bound to the soil; our slogan is: Soil is life. If we think of the thirties, the plague epidemics, the droughts, and all the disasters we had to go through, then we call to mind the time when the man from the rural areas had to go and work in the dark tunnels of the mine. Of those uprooted people a poet said (translation)—

When I sit here dreaming in the tunnels of the mine, I remember the open highveld And the wide heaven above, where a man may still Breathe the air of freedom and believe in a God.
Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

The hon. member for Standerton has spoken and put very well the case for the. small farmer in South Africa. He mentions that 57 per cent of the farmers in this country have an income of under R3,000 per annum, and he maintains that he is speaking on their behalf. He says that when there is money to be made, particularly in the platteland, it is not made by the small farmer. I wonder if he means that perhaps it is being made by the small businessman or the small industrialist. I think I must bring to his notice the fact that, when it comes to the businessman, the position is, according to the last Census and Statistics figures available, that 48 per cent of the retail traders in this country had an annual income in 1961 of only R840 per annum, so the money which the hon. member maintains the farmer is not getting is not going to the small trade either. Sir, I want to deal more specifically with the small businessman and the small industrialist but before doing so I want to say this with regard to what the hon. member had to say: I am very glad to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture is present. I hope that he has taken cognizance of what the hon. member has said and that he will also take cognizance of the terms of the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Albany and that in time something will be done by this Government to stimulate the economic progress of the small farmer.

An HON. MEMBER:

He knows more about it than you and your party.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

If he does, I hope he will do something about it.

An HON. MEMBER:

He has been doing it for ages.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

Sir, my time is limited and I must get on. This motion deals with the small entrepreneur in this country. Who exactly are the people we are speaking about? We have heard from the hon. member for Carletonville the section that he envisages; we have heard from the hon. member who has just sat down about the small farmer. Sir, the 1961-’62 Census shows that 5,212 of the manufacturing establishments in South Africa are owned by individuals and partnerships. These represent something over 42 per cent of the total number of industries in this country but they represent only approximately 4 per cent of the gross output of industry. In the business sphere we find that the picture is a little different. If we consider a small businessman as one whose annual turnover is under R100,000, we find that there are 33,500 such small businessmen. They represent 92.5 per cent of the total number of businesses in South Africa, once again quoting the 1961-’62 statistics. But, Sir, we find that these small businessmen represent between them a total annual turnover of R1,390 million, so that in total these so-called small businesses represent very big business. They have a very important task in South Africa. They play a most important part in the economy. Large industries depend on small industries to provide component parts for whatever they are manufacturing, or to provide services for their manufacturing plants, so much so that we find that the Vauxhall Car Company deals with no fewer than 3,100 suppliers to help them to assemble their motor cars. Small retailers also play a most important part, particularly in the distributive trade. The small towns in the rural areas depend upon small traders, not upon the big giants to which the hon. member for Carletonville referred. Let me say that these small traders have served their communities faithfully for many years, and I am sure they will continue to do so, not only in the commercial sphere but also on the civic plane. However, as has been said by previous speakers, we find to-day that the tendency is more and more towards larger groupings. We are always reading of take-overs and mergers, and we find that the small man is meeting an ever-growing competition from large enterprises.

Sir, contrary to the views expressed by the hon. member for Carletonville, I feel that the small man will never disappear. Although it is becoming more and more difficult for him to compete and to keep his head above water, he can never disappear. He provides a service, a facility, which the big concerns can never take over. But I also want to say to the Government that they must not lose sight of the importance of the small entrepreneur to South Africa, whether he is in the industrial sphere or whether he is in the business sphere. The large firm is only the small man who has grown up. Unfortunately, notwithstanding what I have said and the confidence I have expressed, the small man has some very real problems. The first problem he has in this country is a chronic shortage of capital. He has very few sources that he can turn to for this capital and when he is able to raise capital, he finds that he has to use it on fixed assets, buildings, fixtures and fittings, equipment and so on, so that he finds that for his working capital he has to depend largely upon wholesale firms who are prepared to give him extended credit, and he must work on the basis of “I must buy an article, sell it and collect my money before I can pay the wholesaler”. He also finds that this lack of finance gives him very little to plough back into his enterprise in an attempt to develop it into a larger one, especially after he has had to repay a certain amount of the capital which he has borrowed for fixed assets, after he has met his living costs and after he has paid tax. We also find that this lack of capital is curtailing his buying power and that he is not able to take advantage of cheaper buying facilities which we have in the South African economy today.

Sir, the second problem which the small businessman faces in South Africa is the lack of management training. Most of these enterprises are one-man shows run by one person who has to be a “Jack-of-all-Trades”, and very often he is master of none, and we find that his efficiency suffers.

The third problem is the lack of up-to-date and reliable statistics on which to base his whole enterprise. We find that the last authoritative figures are in respect of the year 1960-’61. During 1967 the Department did issue a circular with certain figures based upon the year 1964 but they added a footnote to the effect that these were not authoritative and were not to be taken as definite.

Sir, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Albany asks the Government to stimulate the economic progress of these entrepreneurs. I want to ask the Government to consider doing what is done in many other countries. We find that in France and in Scandinavia official support is freely forthcoming for many small firms. We find that in 1962 in France President De Gaulle issued a directive to the effect that manufacturers had to supply their product to all re-sellers at an equal rate, and that there were to be no special terms in regard to bonuses or discounts, etc. Before I give the wrong impression, let me say that I am not advocating that this should be introduced in this country and that we should stop the system which prevails. But I ask that the Government should investigate, and let them decide, through their experts, whether it will not be to the benefit of the small businessman if some such step was to be taken. In America they have the Federal Trade Commission Act to guard the interests of free trade. They also have a special Department of State brought about through the Small Businessman’s Administration Act, and I believe this is specifically to aid the Council to assist and to protect the interests of small business concerns. In Germany I believe a very similar system obtains, and when we look at the phenomenal economic progress that Germany has made since the last war, and realize that this has been based almost wholly on the assistance given to the small men, who have to-day developed into big men, I think that the Government could well investigate the statutes that have been passed in other countries.

Then I want to urge on the Government one way in which they can directly assist the small man, and that is to make a percentage of Government spending available to the small man; in other words, to channel its purchasing and contracting for supplies and services directly to the small undertaking. It might cost a little more, but, in the long run it will go a long way towards stabilizing these small people who, I think we all agree, are an asset to the country, and people who do need some form of assistance.

The MINISTER OF PLANNING:

You are not implying that they are getting nothing?

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

I am not implying anything; I am just asking that a certain amount should be channelled to the small men. The Minister can ascertain whether the amount which is being channelled, and I accept his word that a certain amount is being channelled, is an equitable amount.

Further, I would like the Government to reconsider the proposal made by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration some years ago in this House that they should establish some form of corporation along the lines of the Industrial Development Corporation or the Bantu Development Corporation or the Coloured Development Corporation for these small enterprises, specifically with the object of assisting them by means of services in the field of research and of course in the important field of finance.

The DEPUTY MINISTER OF BANTU ADMINISTRATION AND EDUCATION:

Did you not fight these corporations just a few days ago? Now you plead for such corporations.

Mr. W. T. WEBBER:

How can the hon. the Deputy Minister twist my remarks to this extent? We are trying to keep this debate on a high plane, but here the Deputy Minister introduces politics and immediately lowers the tone of the debate.

In regard to income tax, which was also mentioned by the hon. member for Carletonville, I want to appeal to the Government to do something to iron out this tax bulge under which the small entrepreneur suffers, the small man with an income of between R4,000 and R8,000.

*Dr. J. W. BRANDT:

I should like to associate myself with the motion of the hon. member for Carletonville, and also to endorse his doubts as to the future of South Africa in the hands of power capital. But I actually want to confine myself to the second part of the motion, in which he pleads for the small entrepreneur in the mineral mining industry, and I want to pay tribute right away to these people who have meant so much to South Africa, and on whom, in fact, the whole economic life of South Africa has been and still is dependent. I think back to the days when Leydsdorp in the Northern Transvaal had thousands of inhabitants. To-day there is only a police station, an hotel, a few houses and a large cemetery that bear testimony of the extent of the activities of the small entrepreneur in the mineral industry in the past. To-day one still hears of the small man now and then. I am thinking, for example, of Mr. Fincham, after whom the Fincham Diamond Mine was named. Especially with the feverish hunt for minerals throughout the world, we find that countries such as Russia have done a tremendous amount in the past five years to exploit its mineral deposits and to carry out exploration work. I am also aware that a great deal of research has been carried out in the U.S.A. lately in connection with gold deposits which were regarded as uneconomic in the past. Nearer home, in a country such as Rhodesia, we find, if we look at page 2 of the report for the year 1966, an interesting comment by the Secretary for Mines—

The 1965 Report of the Chief Government Mining Engineer and the Undersecretary for Mines drew attention to the almost 20 per cent increase in mineral production achieved in that year over the previous record year.

He goes on to say—

It is encouraging to report that the number of gold producers increase during the year from 285 to 314 and that a reduction in the overall recovery grade was achieved from 5.9 dwts. to 5.5 dwts. The reasons for these improvements can well be found in the Gold Mining Financial Assistance Act of 1963. The implementation of this form of assistance recommended by the Select Committee on the Mining Industry led to an immediate rise in production in 1964.

Then, in the report of the Government Engineer, on pages 15 to 17, the various methods by which assistance is offered are mentioned, for example “Government assistance to industry, mining loans and plant hire”, etc. Then it lists the applications and the amounts paid out, and in addition it mentions everything that has been done by the State for the people. Mention is made of the Government Roasting Plant. Valuable work was performed in that this plant was erected for the small producers at mining sites. The concentrate are conveyed to this plant, and then this Government installation treats the ores which would otherwise have gone untreated. There is also the Geological Exploration Section, which does valuable work in connection with exploration. This means that the State is doing this exploration and is providing guidance which is often to the benefit of the small entrepreneur. It is a fact that our own legislation in South Africa also takes the small entrepreneur into account, and that funds can be made available to them, but as far as I know not much use is made thereof. I think this is largely attributable to the fact that the corporative system has increased so tremendously in mining in South Africa to-day that it has in actual fact excluded the small entrepreneur.

It is important to note that these results in Rhodesia destroy the concept that the small entrepreneur no longer has a place in the sun. It is so frequently said that for reasons of efficiency and productivity the small entrepreneur should be eliminated, but the question occurred to me: If all these mineral workings had been owned by the large power capital machine with its international associations, would Rhodesia have been able to maintain itself in the crisis in which it finds itself today?

But let us come nearer home. If it had not been for the mineral wealth of South Africa, would we not still have been carrying on a subsistence economy similar to that of the Lords Seventeen in all the years they were at the Cape? This mineral wealth undoubtedly imparted momentum to the development of South Africa. The rate of this development has been and is determined by the socioeconomic conditions and natural resources which are actually the true essence of South Africa’s domestic problems. For this reason one cannot accept a theoretical criterion from abroad in this regard and make it applicable to South Africa. In this connection I want to refer to our mining legislation, which does not take into account the general strategic importance of our minerals, and this is not conducive to easy exploitation thereof, by both the small entrepreneur and even by power capital. Here one is faced with the problem that mineral rights belong to the farm-owner and that options have to be taken out for which large sums are charged, which the small entrepreneur usually cannot pay. We are so ready to say that the mines are a disappearing asset and that the resources are becoming depleted, a statement which reflects a misconception, because no absolute depletion or disappearance can be brought about. Quantitively seen, it is in fact only a diminishing asset because it is a consumer element, a factor which is in evidence everywhere in our economy and not only in our mining industry. The fact of the matter is that we make a statement and accept it as important without analysing it correctly or doing anything about the matter. But I will have more to say about this later. The importance of a mineral or metal is dependent upon the period in which we are living. So we find in the case of many of the minerals found in South Africa, that at one stage a mineral is important and in the next it is no longer important. This is the situation we encountered in connection with our uranium deposits in South Africa. When a certain Cooper discovered uranium in the ores of the Witwatersrand in 1924, it was considered of academic interest, but to-day it plays a very large role in our economy and is considered to be something of great importance throughout the world. What is worthless now, may to-morrow have unparalleled strategic value in this atomic age. Therefore the attitude adopted by the State in its legislation should be that all minerals are of strategic importance. I emphasize that all minerals are of strategic importance. Steps can be taken to ensure that the State has the first option in respect of the processing of mineral deposits. I would say that this should be done in cooperation with the person having the mineral rights. This principle is already being considered in connection with legislation which was also referred to by the hon. member who spoke before me and which relates to the development of the Bantu homelands. It may be categorically stated here that the system which obtains in the Republic to-day, for example the payment of the option fees which I have already mentioned to the owner, usually the farmer who has surface rights, favours the large power capital concerns. In much of our mineral prospecting the door is shut to the small entrepreneur and therefore we find this anomaly to-day. I want to mention one example to illustrate my statement. In 1965 one South African mining corporation with large capital resources acquired, by means of its 223 daughter companies—to which the hon. member for Carletonville also referred— interests in gold, coal, diamonds, copper, manganese, asbestos, vanadium, chrome, zinc, platinum and other mineral products. Where does the small entrepreneur ever stand a chance? Is it in the interests of a sound South African economy that an organization with large capital resources should have such control of strategic or non-strategic raw materials? Is it in the interests of a sound labour pattern in South Africa, or even in the interests of the mobilization of capital?

The establishment of a sound social pattern in South Africa, with all its White and non-White ethnic groups, may be handicapped if so much power is concentrated in one large entity. Such a situation means that this entity must of necessity assert its influence on our social structure and our labour pattern.

This then is the problem in respect of our mineral development. I see that section 10 (1) (k) (i) of the Income Tax Act creates similar problems. The hon. member has already referred to the fact that tax is only paid to the extent of 4½ per cent of the profits made by a mining company prior to taxation. By contrast a small entrepreneur with an income of R18,000 per annum has to pay a progressive tax of 72 per cent. There is also another problem. A large percentage of the R268 million paid out to shareholders, on which no tax was paid, went to daughter companies over the power-capital mother company. The appreciation in value of the shares of four companies was as much as R400 million over a period of nine years. This represents the difference between the original purchase price and the present sale value. No tax is paid on this unrealized capital profit and in this way they are enabled to build a large liquid fund. I now ask: What small mining entrepreneur stands a chance against such a large liquid fund? To hold one’s own in these circumstances is an almost super-human task, because our tax system simply does not favour the survival of the small man. In the materialistic world of to-day a gigantic apparatus is engaged in subtly concealing the corporative egotism based on capital strength. By means of the advertising industry the supposedly free choice of the consumer and the worker is directed towards yielding the highest possible profit to the producer. The lower the social level of the consumer, the stronger this influence becomes.

I want to conclude by saying that the wealth of a nation depends on its manufacturing industries, agriculture, mineral wealth and trade. For decades power and raw materials have been obtained from mineral deposits such as coal, oil and iron. Minerals are therefore the foundation of the modern manufacturing industries, and they are essential to agriculture, because phosphate is necessary to increase productivity. Mineral deposits have always been the factor which has given international status to the nations of the world, and this is still the position to-day. They imparted impetus to the South African economy in the last century, and have done so in the present epoch as well, and if we want to afford the South African nation its rightful place on the world scene, and if we want to take our country into the international field, we must handle the development of our mineral riches, which the creator of all things has given to us for a special purpose, in such a way that the small entrepreneur with his national spirit and drive will not be cast aside. It is a fact that all great things have small beginnings, and therefore I say that the source of our nation’s drive lies specifically in the small entrepreneur.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

Mr. Speaker. I hope that at this late hour the hon. member for Etosha will forgive me if I do not follow him and discuss the question of the small miner. He made mention of Fincham who, commenced as a small miner, and now has apparently become a disruptive force because he has progressed to a mine magnate since the days when he, too, was a small miner.

The point I want to raise is the following:

Although the hon. the Minister of Planning is, I know, not directly charged with this matter, I nevertheless hope he will make some comment upon it. I refer to the position of the small hotelier who is at present facing a crisis as regards his immediate future. It is generally agreed that an improvement in the country’s hotels is necessary and it is accepted that the attempts which were made were directed at obtaining a general improvement and to assist in the development of the country’s tourist industry. But one is alarmed at the recent announcement of the chairman of the Hotel Board to the effect that only 550 hotels had applied for classification whilst some 1,000 must, as the law now stands, apply for classification before 31.5.1968. All 1,500 of them are expected to have completed the necessary improvements by 31st December, 1968, or run the risk of becoming mere wine and malt houses or losing their licences entirely, I do not want to enlarge on this save to say that this situation can have disastrous results for a large number of small hoteliers throughout the length and breadth of our country. They purchased their hotels at a time when the price bore a relation to the fact that the establishments had full liquor licences. Now they must either on an average invest something like R30,000 for the required improvements, or …

The MINISTER OF TOURISM:

No.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

The hon. the Minister of Tourism shakes his head and says “no”. Recently I conducted a survey in the Cape in regard to a number of small hotels, places which are really only seasonal hotels, and I found that on an average a sum of R30,000 had to be spent on improvements in order to comply with the minimum requirements as laid down in Schedule 3. The alternative these people have, is to face the loss of their licences, or else they must try and run their businesses on a wine and malt licence. The capital loss they will have to carry themselves. There can be no illusions about this position. The figures are quite clear and the situation is quite clear. Seventy-five per cent of the hotels in the Western Cape, the small seaside and town hotels, to-day face ruin unless something is done so that they can enjoy a measure of relief. The Minister probably knows about the False Bay area hotel which was recently put up for auction. It has a present municipal rateable value of R160,000, but the highest bid was only R90,000. Nobody is interested in the hotel trade. The Minister must surely be aware too that the persons who own these small hotels cannot obtain a R100 bond on their hotels for improvement purposes. They cannot obtain loans because the money is not available.

Now, I believe too high a target has been set for the off-the-high-way-type of hotel. Some seaside hotels are only occupied for say four, six or eight weeks in a year, but their walls have had to be taken down and moved six inches so as to comply with the requirement of 100 square feet for a single bedroom. Very often such a room is occupied by a youngster who merely wants somewhere to sleep during a holiday at the seaside. This is the expense hoteliers have been put to in order to comply with the minimum requirements for a one-star grading which allows them to retain a full liquor licence.

These hotels are not permanent homes. The position is serious, and if the hon. the Minister of Planning cannot deal with this matter then perhaps the hon. the Minister of Tourism who is sitting here might find it convenient to make some statement to relieve the anxiety felt by these small hoteliers. Many of these hoteliers will have to charge R5, R6 and more per day for their short seasons if they have to expend this additional capital, and that class of trade is very limited. I do believe this problem must be faced, and I feel there must be some alternative for these people. No doubt the hon. the Minister has received many suggestions, but it does seem a distinction can or must be made between the hotel situated on the main tourist route and the hotel in the little seaside resort, or the small town, catering for the casual visitor, or, in the case of the seaside hotel, for a holidaymaker spending a month or six weeks away from home over the Christmas season.

I want to say to the Minister that I do not believe that merely saying to the hoteliers concerned they can have an extension for another year or two is the answer to this problem. That is not going to solve the problem. The money is not going to be there. The estimate of the chairman of the Hotel Board in regard to the cost of the work which the country’s hotels have to undertake is some R30 million. That is his estimate. Where is it coming from?

The MINISTER OF TOURISM:

Whose estimate is it?

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

A member of the Hotel Board. I read the report in which this figure is mentioned. It is based roughly on 1,000 hotels each spending R30,000 on improvements. That is the figure. I can give the Minister figures which show that some local hotels, not large ones, spent far more than R30,000 in order to comply with minimum requirements. A lot of these hotels were built many years ago, they have thick walls, and when it comes to installing additional bathrooms, well, these are not cheap alterations. They are most expensive alterations. I hope the Minister will realize that 1,000 hoteliers throughout the length and breadth of the Republic are aware that the 31st day of May, 1968, is the last day on which they can make their applications as the law now stands. By 31st December, 1968, they must complete the required improvements.

The MINISTER OF TOURISM:

No.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

The Minister may give an extension, I know, but 31st May, I think, is final.

The MINISTER OF TOURISM:

The Minister concerned has given over 100 extensions.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

I know. I know the Minister has given over 100 extensions but those are of the 500 people who applied. There are 1,000 others who do not know how to set about it because they cannot be financed. The finance is not there to enable them to make the improvements. One thousand hotels have not even applied yet. They are facing uncertain days. I know the Minister is faced with a difficult problem. I appreciate that. But at the same time I do believe some steps must be taken to relieve the position. I do not believe it is healthy suddenly to demand that R30 million be injected into the hotel trade in South Africa just to improve these hotels. It is a large sum of money but it may be that I have overstated the figure.

The MINISTER OF TOURISM:

I think the R30 million is an overstatement.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

That is open to discussion. It will run into many millions to meet with those needs. I mention this because these people are facing ruin. They are perturbed and their associations are very perturbed. It seems that some formula must be found whereby some relief from these requirements can be granted to the small town or drop hotel which is used merely for the convenience of the people living in those small towns. The national road goes past these towns and the travelling public do not make use of those hotels at all. But the people in these towns and surrounding districts need an hotel in their town. These hotels cannot comply with the financial burden of having to fulfil all the improvements. I now want to come to one final point. The National Licensing Board has now adopted the attitude that the minimum under Schedule III is really the minimum for a liquor licence. I believe this could lead to a tremendous amount of hardship and can even result in a man losing his spirits’ licence and not being able to obtain a wine and malt licence because he does not conform to these very minimums under Schedule III. I hope the hon. the Minister will look at them again. There are a lot of very small items which are costly. They are necessary for a high class hotel but I do not think they are all necessary to enforce in all details. All I can suggest in the spirit of the motion that is before us is that the Government take some steps to look into this particular class of small businessman and find some means whereby he can be assisted.

*The MINISTER OF MINES AND OF PLANNING:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down, said quite rightly that this matter of hotel-keeping is a very special one that is dealt with by a specific ministry and has recently received special attention. Therefore I am sure that he does not expect of me to reply to that now. I just want to tell the hon. member that it was quite within the limits of the motion to mention it. The motion is stated in very broad terms and those persons in the hotel industry to whom he referred, may also be the smaller businessmen. The matters that have been broached to-day.

concern several ministries. As a matter of fact I am not standing here in my capacity as representative of the two ministries under my charge, but rather in my capacity as a representative of the Government. In this regard I think hon. members will agree with me that it cannot be expected that a conclusive answer be given to-day to many of the matters raised. But I want to say immediately that I find it a great pleasure to welcome this motion moved by the hon. member for Carletonville. I think that the discussions we have had here this afternoon have been of great value. I think we have rendered a service and the hon. member who moved the motion has rendered a service to South Africa and to the small man in particular—the small man who may at times be quite a big man. I take note of the motion with appreciation and I want to say that there is nothing in the motion which one cannot support unreservedly. In other words, to-day has been a good day for the people in South Africa and those tens of thousands who, in different spheres of life, are commonly called the “small man”.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

We small ones are having a very hard time.

*The MINISTER:

I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) has now mentioned the wrong example, especially if I look in his direction. The things said here to-day in respect of the small man have also made me very much aware of the fact that the independence and individuality of our people in South Africa should always remain of the greatest importance to all of us and to the Government. I think that the independence associated with the small farmer—and I should prefer to give him a different name later on—the small businessman and the small digger, is so much part of the national character of South Africa that we should not lightly allow it to disappear or abandon it. They are of great value to us and I think this was very evident from the speeches from both sides of the House. It was also evident from what was said by both sides of the House and by the member for Carletonville, namely that the basis of this Republic and the Government’s view had always been and should always remain free competition, in contrast with those countries not allowing free competition.

We must never place unnecessary restrictions on private initiative, which is inseparably linked with free competition in South Africa. We must not lightly take action to impose restrictions on private initiative. I am very much aware of the fact that, and I listened very attentively to the references made by the hon. member for Carletonville and others in this regard, that large and powerful financial organizations have come into being and have been built up in South Africa that are extending their arms in all directions. To impose restrictions on them by means of drastic measures would in fact be a negative course of action in respect of the small man, and therefore it has always been the Government’s policy to do something positive for the small man in South Africa. I think that this motion also contains a positive request—as in fact was quite evident from the discussions— that the small man in the Republic be looked after.

Although I have stressed the freely competitive character of private initiative in South Africa—which must be retained—it is on the other hand not the policy of the Government or of this country to amalgamate the smaller men into larger units because they are having a difficult time in certain respects, and so to destroy their individuality and independence. This is being done in countries that do not accept democracy as we do. It is being done by gathering them together in State organizations. This is not, and will not be, the policy of this Government. We must, however, retain the balance. Whilst it is not the basic policy of the Government to gather the small men together in State organizations and thereby to destroy their independence, we must, however, retain the balance by not closing our eyes to the fact that what the Government as democrats to the core are not prepared to do, will in fact be the result of the activities of the larger organizations. We must not allow the larger capital forces to succeed in practice in causing the small man to disappear from the scene, because then the final result will be the same. That is why we have the anti-monopolistic legislation in South Africa, which is difficult legislation to administer. It cannot be effective in all respects, but if underlines the fact that it is the policy not to allow monopolies. But secondly, in reply to the request made by the hon. member for Carletonville to the effect that a thorough investigation be instituted on a national level into the problems of the small entrepreneur, I want to say that the Government already appointed a commission last year to investigate the monetary and fiscal policy of the Republic.

If one looks at the terms of reference of this commission, it is very clear that in its investigation and recommendations careful attention will have to be paid to the position of the small man as regards monetary and fiscal matters. I do not want to suggest for one moment that this commission is the complete answer to the request made by the hon. member for Carletonville. However, I think it will be unwise at this stage, while we are awaiting the report of the commission, to appoint a second commission, which is possibly a commission that can follow upon the other. Accordingly I do not want to reply to the hon. member with a final “no”. Secondly, I do not want to say a final no as an answer because this matter affects several of my colleagues, as well, for example the Minister of Economic Affairs, the Minister of Finance, definitely the Minister of Agriculture, and myself as Minister of Mines. I think it would be unwise, not to have moved this motion, but to accept it at this stage while we are awaiting the recommendations of the commission which I have just mentioned.

The hon. member also mentioned the question of the pressure of taxation. In this regard I just want to mention a few figures to you to indicate what the position is at present. These matters are also being examined by the commission. Firstly, hon. members know that a company pays a normal tax of 36⅔ per cent on its full income. This applies from the first rand. The individual is taxed on a progressive scale. If we use the figures mentioned by the hon. member for Carletonville, then a single person living in, for example, the Transvaal— as the question of provincial taxation is also involved here, even though it does not amount to much—pays 35.9 per cent on R16,000, 38.8 per cent on R18,000, and 49.6 per cent on R30,000. I am mentioning these figures mainly for the sake of the record.

With reference to the motion I should like to say a few words about the three types of small men mentioned in it. In the first place I want to say something about the small mineral prospector and miner. For statistical purposes the various mines in South Africa are classified according to different criteria. The first criterion is to classify mines into those purchasing supplies to the value of not less than R200,000 annually and those purchasing supplies to the value of more than R200,000 annually. I repeat that this classification is made according to supplies and not according to profits. It is interesting to note that in the category of mines purchasing supplies to the value of less than R200,000, there are no fewer than 878 mines in the Republic, while there are only 200 mines that purchase supplies to the value of more than R200,000 per annum. We see, therefore, that out of a total of 1,078 mines, there are 878 mines in the category of mines purchasing supplies to the value of less than R200,000 per annum. A second criterion according to which mines are classified, is their taxable profits. This relates to gold mines. The number of mines is known only to the Secretary of Inland Revenue, but I may nevertheless inform you that in the case of those mines with a taxable income of less than R140,000 per annum, special tax concessions are made which I will not discuss in more detail now. We know that although we do not have their number, ten of them received financial assistance under the Government loan scheme last year. This is the second way in which our mines are classified. Thirdly our mines are classified into those with an average of fewer than 200 employees and those with an average of more than 200 employees. This is done for the purpose of making certain concessions to those mines with fewer than 200 employees. This is written into the regulations and is being done in practice. I am mentioning these things to show that, as far as the Government and the departments are concerned, as well as in the regulations issued in terms of legislation, a distinction is in fact drawn and the smaller mines are being looked after. The figures I have mentioned do not include the diamond diggers and the miners of base metals working on the basis of claims. One finds these miners of base metals mostly in Namaqualand. It is a fact that the number of diamond miners is decreasing. They are a vanishing generation. I find this rather sad, because they are a class of people who have made our country more colourful. They have my sympathy. They are adventurers. They have told me in discussions that even if they could have an assured income, they would prefer the adventure and the possibility of finding what gives the adventurer his own particular character.

*An HON. MEMBER:

As gamblers.

*The MINISTER:

No, they are not gamblers at all. They are adventurers, hardy men. Gambling is quite a different matter. It is this adventure and the possibility of discovering something that puts a spark into their lives. These people have no other livelihood. Their numbers are decreasing and I think it is our duty to see to it in future, as far as we are able that as land becomes available, if it does become available, these people to whom this is the only means of gaining a livelihood will be taken care of. Allow me to give you the figures in this respect. In 1941 there were 4,332 persons who had diggers’ certificates. At the end of 1967 there were only 1,335 of them. We also know that many of the people who have certificates are not bona fide diggers. According to the figures at my disposal there were only 329 bona fide diggers in the Transvaal and 260 in the Cape, in other words, a small number, at the end of last year.

As regards mining I also just want to say that we must not close our eyes to the fact that some of our most valuable discoveries, particularly as far as diamonds are concerned, have been made by the so-called professional prospectors. Although we are entering a new dispensation in the sense that we will have to replace our vanishing gold assets by the mining of base metals on a larger scale, I do think that with regard to mining we must not forget that these individuals have made a very great contribution in South Africa. Neither must we forget that in individual cases they may still do so. I want to mention briefly that they also create problems for the Republic, for example, with regard to wasteful exploitation, erosion, etc. We must not lose sight of the deterioration of our top-soil. We also have the problem that there is no standardization of their products. Their products are marketed sporadically. In other words, marketing does not in reality benefit from it, as the large factories want a constant supply. Then they also export the unprocessed products. This, of course, is less advantageous to the State. I can mention further problems, but I only want to point out, also for their ears, that this leads to insecurity amongst their employees. For this reason, incidentally, I am coming forward with legislation this session to provide security to employees on smaller mines in that they will have at least the minimum benefits at their disposal. I want to make one further observation with regard to mining, and that is that this debate will at least have the effect of making the small man in the mining industry realize that his future salvation lies in the amalgamation of activities.

The second point mentioned in this motion is the question of the small farmer. I wonder whether we should not rather speak of the individual farmer or the one-man farm. As far as the small farmer or the one-man farmer is concerned, it is of the greatest importance to me—as in the case of the miner, but to a much greater extent—that his independence must be retained. I am glad that this point has been raised in the discussion. The independence that is cultivated on the small one-man farm, even among the children, is something which South Africa must take pains to preserve. I differ with many people in regard to the agricultural holdings near our towns. If those agricultural holdings are only used as a place of abode and not as a means of providing a livelihood to the farmer, it is in my opinion something which has provided one of the main solutions since 1933, when our people began to flock to the towns. That person who has an agricultural holding near the town, and I qualify this by saying that it should not be his only source of income, has a better place of abode than a common street number and a house. We must be very realistic, and where we are putting forward all these arguments, the small farmer and the one-man farmer should at least, and this must be stressed, be an economic unit. An economic unit is very difficult to define, as the smallest piece of land may be an economic unit. I have been told that sugar may be cultivated successfully on 30 morgen; sultanas on 6 morgen; tomatoes on 1½ morgen; but I think the classic example was mentioned here long ago by the hon. Mr. Sauer, i.e. that a bee farmer makes a good living on half a morgen. I mention these examples in contrast to the impression prevalent in South Africa that the Government wants to get rid of the small farmer. I say that it is in the interests of South Africa, especially when one looks at the increase in population, that the man who is able to farm economically and profitably on a small scale, should be encouraged. I would rather see a man on 1½ morgen with a good crop of tomatoes, in a position to pay for the school and university education of his children, than to see a man farming on 6,000 morgen somewhere in our dry regions and not being able to make a living. It is quite untrue— as a matter of fact, it is ridiculous even to think of it—that the Government, or any right-thinking person, wants the small farmer as such to disappear. But it is equally true that, in the interests of South Africa and of those people themselves, the uneconomic unit should disappear. When one speaks of an economic unit, we and the people outside must realize quite clearly that such a unit should be determined on the basis of the capital investment on the one hand and the production potential on the other hand. A great deal can be said about production potential, but I do not intend doing that now.

In the second place there is a definite policy in respect of these people which is being carried out day by day with the hand and with the head and with finances. It is the main function of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to keep as many individual farmers on the land as possible and to establish others there; to give long-term loans at a fixed rate of interest of 5 per cent; to consolidate uneconomic units so that either the farmers are kept there or others are placed there; and to make land available for settlement on an economic basis or in economic units. There is also the financing of the farmers of category 3. They are farmers who do not have sufficient capital resources to obtain credit in the usual way. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services distributes its knowledge free of charge. Sixteen million rand is made available to our farmers, and is at the disposal of the small farmer and of the big farmer. The Agricultural Advisory Board has also been reorganized so as to furnish specific advice for the purpose of formulating agricultural policy in which special provision is made for ensuring a decent living to the individual farmer, including the people whom we have discussed to-day. It would be wrong to stress only the importance of the smallholder and what is being done for him. I think it is our duty to point out to our people that not every man living on a piece of land is a farmer, and that not every man is able to make a contribution to the economy and agriculture. I made this mistake myself. Fortunately I do not have to make my living from the land. The craving and the love for the land are so great that when a man buys land, he does not think with his head, but with his heart, because he wants a piece of land. Then he pays too much. We cannot over-emphasize the fact that the capital invested in land must not be out of proportion to its productive capacity when the farmer is dependent upon the land for his livelihood.

As regards the shall farmer, there is still another matter, i.e. injudicious mechanization. One wonders whether a great deal does not remain to be done in having these people mechanize on a co-operative basis. I think this is one of the biggest opportunities for our smaller man who must make his living from farming. I do not wish to stress the lack of managérial ability, but this lack is probably much greater—and I am saying this because my own family are farmers—in farming than in any other sector of our economy. I say this to encourage our people and to impress upon them the fact that a farm and farming must to-day be managed like any other business undertaking, and even better. The bookkeeping in farming can be improved. When I was in London, I had the greatest difficulty in finding out what was happening on our farm, as my brothers do not keep the books properly. This is not an accusation, but a practical example of what is happening in our rural areas. The bookkeeping of our farm is much better to-day as a result of the fact that my brothers had to write letters to me, otherwise I would have come and had a look myself and then they would have had too much trouble with me.

I want to mention a further point in regard to the small farmer. The failure to make use of the knowledge, research, information and the specific assistance and advice which he can get is still too great. The fact of the matter is that officers of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are prepared to come to his farm and do the planning there for him, and give him the necessary advice. In this respect there is room for improvement.

The last point concerning this matter is a very important one. We, as parents, can make a major contribution in preventing the formation of uneconomic units. We can do so by not bequeathing land to our children in such a way that it is cut up into uneconomical units. Here is an opportunity for every man and every woman who possesses a piece of land to leave to posterity something that may really be to the benefit of agriculture in particular.

Let me just furnish these further figures. As regards financial aid to agriculture I am astounded to see that R8 million was spent last year in respect of the consolidation of debts. If I analyse this, it seems to me that it is really the smaller man that is involved. There were 611 cases involved here, which means that the average assistance only amounted to R12,500. I therefore think it is the smaller man that is involved here. As regards the purchase of land, R10½ million was spent. If I divide this figure by the 530 persons who were assisted, then it amounts to an average of R20.000 per person. I say average, because I do not have the exact particulars. It seems once more that it is again the small man who was really looked after as regards financial assistance by the Government. Here is another figure. Last year 11,925 persons were assisted by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, and the amount involved was almost R32 million. This means that approximately 9, 10, 11 per cent of the total number of people who have to make a living from agriculture were assisted by that Department in one year. I think this redounds to the credit of the Government.

*Mr. T. W. WEBBER:

This is the first year in which that Department existed.

*The MINISTER:

I do not know whether it was the first or the last year of that Department’s existence, but let me tell the hon. member that the same will apply to this Department as applies to the National Party: The National Party will remain in power and the Department will remain in existence.

I shall now deal with the last point. I want to say something about the retail dealer, the man in business. It is a fact that the entire pattern in South Africa is changing. In South Africa there has been a radical change in the distribution structure and pattern. To-day we have the self-service stores, the chain stores, the departmental stores, and the discount stores. These institutions have brought about a change in the entire distribution pattern. But the fact of the matter remains that in view of the opportunities for employment that exist, the high standard of income of our people, and the prospects that exist, the long-term prospects in commerce are definitely promising. This is the first point we must make. The second point is that with this new development two things have happened. Competition has been intensified, but efficiency has also improved. Competition has been intensified particularly in regard to the retail store. It is characteristic of this recent development—the creation of the large complexes—that their primary aim is a quick turnover. I mention these points because they may be to the advantage of the small man if he takes notice of them. The small man must do what the big man does not do and then his future, in my opinion, will be more assured. As I have said, the large institutions aim at a quick turnover. They also concentrate on cash sales and uncomplicated accounting systems. Delivery is confined to a minimum. Self-service is of course a very important aspect of the entire matter.

It is so that there is a very large number of people in our country who for various reasons prefer to make purchases at the small business enterprise, and many of our people are even prepared to pay a little more for the personal service they enjoy at smaller shops. If we look at the rest of the world, we see that these large complexes had originated in other countries before they made their appearance here. In the U.S.A., in Britain, in Belgium and in the Netherlands this development of chain stores and the other enterprises which I have mentioned, began at an earlier stage than here. But experience has shown that, in spite of the swift growth of these large units, the turnover of smaller dealers and their number has also increased. I do not have the figures for the Republic, but this is what happened in the other aforementioned countries. As I have said, even with the swift development of the larger units, the turnover—and the number—of small men has increased. In Germany, and in two or three other countries as well, these larger units had originally been subject to limitations, but these limitations were abolished some time ago—when exactly, I do not know. I am furnishing hon. members with this background to indicate that there is another side to this matter as well.

Now our one-man business, usually the man and his wife and their daughter, or whoever they be, has an advantage over the large unit, since the relation between buyer and seller is an intimate relationship. If I can give our one-man businesses one piece of advice, it is that they should retain this intimate relationship and make every effort to improve it. Since we have been considering one-man businesses and have paid attention especially to the dealer, the farmer and the miner, I should like to mention here that if we speak of one-man businesses we should not lose all sight of the professional people.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

But you do not speak of a one-woman party.

*The MINISTER:

The hon. member would be in a wonderful position if women were distributed according to size. I discussed the relationship of buyer to seller. I do not want to discredit the greater importance of the farmer and the dealer now, but this relation also exists in regard to the professional man. I have in mind the individual medical practitioner who finds himself up against a panel of four, five, six doctors. There is also the attorney, the man out in the country rendering a special service, who has to compete against the large firm, where a number of attorneys are in association. There are other cases as well. I mention this in passing as I do not want these people to be forgotten.

The one-man business has another advantage too, and that is that the establishment of chain, self-service and departmental stores require large concentrations of people. Therefore, in the less densely populated areas of our country, there will always be room for the small man and his business, whether it is a business concern or whatever it may be. Of course it is only high rents that force the small man from the centre of the city. The fact of the matter is that he still has a place to go to in South Africa.

Another point I should like to mention, is that there are several sectors of commerce which these larger business concerns have not yet entered. I have in mind the chemists and particularly the butcher shops, to mention only two. I also want to mention the following point in regard to our one-man business. It is true that we are living in a world of specialization, and the dealer who has a one-man business, must specialize. This gives him an advantage over any large business concern.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.

The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.

MONDAY, 18TH MARCH, 1968 Prayers—2.20 p.m. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—RAILWAYS (Debate on motion to go into—resumed) Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

When the debate was adjourned on Wednesday, I had made certain preliminary remarks and I was going to proceed to tell the hon. the Minister of Transport that it is becoming apparent that, like his colleague the Minister of Finance, he is accepting as deliberate policy the principle of deliberately budgeting for a smaller surplus or a small deficit, when in fact a proper regard to the circumstances should induce him to budget for much better results at the end of the year. This practice of over-estimating the expenditure and under-estimating the revenue is becoming a feature of the Budgets presented to the House by the Ministers of Finance and Transport; and it is making it extremely difficult for members of the House and for members of the public to attach the importance and the value to the Estimates made by these hon. Ministers that the country should be entitled to attach to them. I think one should take a look at the Budget and at the almost final results, that we are considering at the moment. Originally the hon. the Minister estimated revenue at R730,966,000, but it has now become R753,834,000. In other words, the Minister’s estimate was R22,868,000 too low. The Minister estimated his expenditure at R730,493,000, and it has now become R718,665,800. In other words, the Minister estimated his expenditure almost R12 million too high, and as a result the surplus which the Minister estimated at between R400,000 and R500,000 a year ago, has soared to more than R35 million. Sir, at the time this was done last year it was a most inappropriate action on the part of the Minister, because we were in the throes of inflation. The country was deeply concerned that anything tending to put up costs should have been avoided. The hon. the Minister was warned at the time, as a reference to the debates last year will show, by many members on this side of the House that his estimates were wrong and that he was doing an injustice to the people of South Africa; that he was causing an increase in the costs of the people at a time when all Government policy should have been directed towards reducing costs. As I have said, he was warned. He was told, for example—and I will come back to this in a moment—that a considerable change would have to be made in his estimates because, in view of the measures which the Government contemplated at the time against inflation it was inevitable that import control would have to be relaxed. And import control was relaxed and this made a major contribution to the increasing income of the S.A. Railways and Harbours. If the Minister had taken our advice last year and had made use of the Rates Equalization Fund, the position would have been much healthier at the moment and the public of South Africa would have been saved an addition of R35 million to the costs of production in South Africa. I do not think that the hon. the Minister can expect to go scot-free on this charge.

As I shall show, this process again seems to be in the mind of the Minister, at least subconsciously, for the year that lies ahead. The signs are that he is again planning to do the same thing to us in the year that is coming. In announcing the increases of R43 million to the staff, the Minister indicated that he felt that inflation was being beaten in South Africa. He made that specific statement in his Budget speech, but a little later in his speech, when he analysed the prospects for the new year, he said—

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.

He put that as a possibility. But when he came to consider his estimates for the new year he took this fear that the restraining influences of deflationary measures may continue to be felt, as a fact. He based his calculations and his expectations upon the expectation that severe deflationary measure would be continued by the Government, at a time when with his wage increases he was committing an act of considerable inflationary influence in South Africa. To show how conservative he was, the Minister indicated in his speech—I am only giving a few examples— that high-rated traffic would diminish on the S.A. Railways and therefore we could expect a lower income. He indicated that he expected revenue on goods, livestock and coal to increase by only 1.99 per cent this year as against 9.98 per cent the year before. For some unknown reason he expected that the pipe-line would earn some R2 million less than it did the year before, and so on and so forth, and the result is a picture which is more pessimistic than it need be.

Sir, may I repeat what I said last year: We have reason to believe, if official statements by the Government and its officials mean anything, that there will be continuing relaxation of import control on high-rated traffic and high-rated goods carried by the Railways from our harbours to the inland areas. We have reason to believe this because—and I am sure the Minister must be aware of these facts too —in November of last year, the Director of Imports and Exports, Mr. D. S. L. de Villiers, told the Assocom conference that the number of items on the restrictive list under the import control regulations would be greatly reduced this year. He said that the ultimate aim of the Government was to do away with the restrictive list altogether. Indeed in December, 1967, a month later, considerable relaxations were gazetted, and if one is to believe Mr. D. S. L. de Villiers—and I do believe him—further relaxations will follow. Did the Minister give due consideration to this important fact when he prepared his Estimates and when he expected these drops in high-rated traffic?

It is interesting if one looks at the latest report of the General Manager to see that he says “The relaxation of import control during July and December, 1966, benefited harbour traffic, resulting in an increase of 3.6 million tons or 12.1 per cent in the tonnage of cargo handled at the various harbours.” Much of that cargo had to be transported in addition by the S.A.R. & H. But the Minister, in spite of the Government’s policy to do away with the restrictive list entirely disregards the effect of this factor. One must expect that some action will be taken in view of the new inflationary pressures created by the Minister in his Budget and, according to a preliminary announcement made by the Minister, still to be created, by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Import control will be relaxed further to counter the inflationary effect of the wage increases. But the Minister totally disregards it in planning for the new year. That, amongst other things, makes one wonder whether the hon. the Minister is not again deliberately budgeting for a deficit which will be much smaller by the time he accounts to this House in a year’s time. He is budgeting for an eventual deficit of R22 million.

Last year when we considered his Budget we on this side warned the Minister that it would have inflationary tendencies. As I have shown, we were fully justified in sounding those warnings, because railway users were forced to pay more than R35 million in excess of the needs of the Railways for that year.

I do not think the public always realize how inflationary some of the policies of this Minister are. To illustrate this, I want to refer to one of the most blatant examples of inflationary actions and inflationary policies on the part of the S.A.R. I want to refer to the pipeline used for conveying fuel, petrol and oil, from Durban to Johannesburg. In his speech last Wednesday the Minister estimated that the final income from the pipeline for this year would be R24.6 million, which is R7.4 million more than he budgeted for a year ago. This is in line with my general charge against the Minister. What we should note is that the total capital cost of this pipeline is only R22,470,000 odd. In other words, in this one year, the profit on the pipeline was virtually equal to the total capital investment in that pipeline, The current expenditure made by the Minister to earn an income of R24 million was only R3,271,000. In other words, the hon. the Minister on current account earned a profit of more than 700 per cent! I have asked this question before and I want to repeat it now: What would the attitude of the Government be to any private enterprise in South Africa that made a profit exceeding 700 per cent on a commodity essential to the good life of the people of South Africa? Such a private enterprise would be execrated, would be damned. Action would be taken against it; the price controller would be put on to that firm immediately to try and smash this evil thing. I want to repeat that I consider the transport of petrol from the coast to the inland areas of South Africa at a profit of 700 per cent, repaying the total capital invested in that pipeline almost every year, is a crime and a disgrace, and the Minister should be ashamed of himself. This one commodity with an investment of R22 million is earning three per cent of the total income of the S.A.R., whereas the South African harbours, with a capital investment of R119 million, handling a wide variety of commodities, through which many varieties of goods are imported and our exports are despatched, can only earn 5 per cent. Our harbours are a most profitable sphere of the S.A.R. & H. They earn 5 per cent of the Railways’ total income. But the pipeline alone, with one-fifth of the investment, and handling only one commodity at the expense of one section of the people of South Africa, namely those who live in the Southern Transvaal and the Northern Free State, makes 3 per cent of the total income of the S.A.R. & H.

Only if one is completely and utterly prejudiced and only if one takes a very narrow and bigoted view from the exclusive standpoint of the Railways, separated from the national interests, can one possibly justify such an act of exploitation. If the Government were to reduce the cost of transporting petrol by the pipeline by 50 per cent, it would have to sacrifice R10½ million in revenue. In relation to the total revenue of the South African Railways, which is now approximately R775 million per year, that would only be .03 per cent of the total revenue. But, Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what this would mean to the inland areas served by this pipeline? What it would mean to Pretoria with the highest cost of living in South Africa, to the Witwatersrand, which is not far behind, and to your own Parys which is one of the most delightful villages in South Africa?

I think that what I have just said—and these are hard facts—will give the House some indication of the rôle played by the hon. the Minister and the South African Railways in pushing up the cost of living for large sections of the South African people. We warned then that these higher tariffs would be inflationary and we warn to-day, not that the increase in the wages of the servants of the South African Railways and Harbours is in any way wrong, but that the method used by the Minister in giving these increases, will again be inflationary. We have spoken about this before but as always our words fall on deaf ears. The Minister will come round to our way of thinking eventually. We have to tell him the same story at least seven or eight times before he begins to understand what we are talking about. I can remember how many years Mr. P. W. Pocock, Mr. Hamilton-Russell and later I myself spent trying to persuade the hon. the Minister that building a pipeline from the coast to Johannesburg would be a good thing, but he had a thousand arguments against it. When it came to the eighth or the ninth year, he was converted and he built the pipeline. Having built one pipeline, he is now rushing to build a second one and it will be completed within a year. I want to give him his due credit. It takes us a long time to convert him, but once we have converted him, that conversion is most thorough.

We say that the manner in which the Minister has given increases to his staff will again be inflationary because it is wrong to give the staff these huge increases in one year and then to sit back with tight hands on the reins refusing them any benefits as the cost of living rises until their position becomes utterly intolerable, as it has become in this instance. He waits until he faces a virtual rebellion on the part of his staff. Then he has to provide for these major injections of new money into the economy of South Africa. To give the House an idea of the jerks which this Minister inflicts upon the economy of South Africa, I should like to refer to figures which show how these increases have been given. In 1962-’63 the staff was given increases of R54½ million. In 1963-’64 the reins were held tight and they got only R6,000. In 1964-’65 when the general election was approaching, they got R20½ million. In 1965-’66 the general election was at hand and they got R36,800,000. In 1966-’67 the general election was past and they got R165. This was merely a small token of appreciation. In 1967-’68 they got R266,000. The Minister must have been mellowing then already. This year they are to be given R43 million. [Interjections.] To judge by the problems of the governing party, that election may be due any moment. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is considering having a general election or not. What I do know is that the Minister has allowed a situation to develop among the staff of the South African Railways and Harbours which he could not sustain for another six months. I know that this was forced upon him by the adamant attitude of the Staff Association. I do not want to bore the House by quoting recent statements by the leaders of the Staff Association of the South African Railways, but everyone made it perfectly clear that they have come to the end of their tether and that the Minister’s ill-considered actions in not giving them relief when relief was due at the proper time, was creating an intolerable situation for the workers of the South African Railways. While we are gratified and happy that this is happening to the staff—and we are, because we felt it was overdue, and we said so—I still want to repeat the attitude of the Opposition in these matters, namely that it would be much better if the Government in the Railways and elsewhere—but let us stick to the Railways for the moment—would follow a policy of regularly adjusting the incomes of its servants. As the cost of living rises, adjustments should follow automatically, so that the workers at all times will be able to maintain the standards of living that they have earned for themselves over the years, and that they will not find that at one moment their incomes are beyond their cost of living, and the next moment they are struggling to make ends meet, as the cost of living overtakes their income level. There should be regular adjustments of the cost of living allowances.

Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

When did that happen?

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure of the date but I think it was some three or four years after the war that this Government repealed the regulation under which the United Party Government adjusted the cost-of-living allowances of civil servants and Railway employees every three months as required by changes in the cost-of-living index. [Interjections.] But now, Sir, you must help me. I want to conduct a useful argument but one of the chief Railway representatives of the opposite side of the House, the hon. member for Colesberg, does not even know that simple fact. Where does one start? Where does one find a meeting place for minds on which to base an argument?

The Minister will accept this suggestion in due course, but if he will do it speedily, he will find that the only matter that will then remain for negotiations between his Administration and the Staff Union, will be to determine by collective bargaining what share the employees of the State, in this case the Railway workers, should get of the growing prosperity of South Africa. But there will never be an argument about how and when they should be compensated for rises in the cost of living, for the creeping inflation, which all over the world, and also in South Africa, has become the deliberate policy of governments. While that is so, why then should the wage earner and the salaried man continually have to pay the price for the actions of the Government? This argument is basic, and I hope the hon. the Minister will give it proper consideration. While the Minister had given this most welcome and generous concession to the workers of the South African Railways, for which he deserves all the praise that he is getting I am not going to stint my praise, except for the qualification that I made with emphasis a minute ago.

I want to express my regret that the Minister could not give us more details of these increases in his Budget Speech. There may be adequate reasons for it, but we are told that in due course the Staff Association will get the details and Parliament will have to wait until the details are worked out. I want to ask him just one question on detail: Will some of this R43 million be used to increase the pensions paid to the contractual pensioners on the South African Railways?

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

No.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

The only concession they will get in other words, is the relief that they will get from the means test if they work for private enterprise.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Yes.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I think that is regrettable, but there was uncertainty, and I am glad to have this certainty.

Now, in spite of this increase the biggest problem that is facing the hon. the Minister and to which he has had no reply in his Budget Speech, no suggestion even of a plan except the increase in salaries, is the question of the staff shortages on the South African Railways and Harbours. I know the Minister and I, all of us, find ourselves on common ground. This is the most troubling and the most disturbing problem facing South Africa; in the case of the S.A. Railways perhaps more immediately so than in any other organization in South Africa. The Minister told us in his Budget speech that the average shortage in certain grades was 13 per cent. But 13 per cent is only the average, so that in certain grades it must have been higher. I wish the Minister would take us into his confidence in this connection. As regards artisans—the creative members of the staff on the engineering side— he told us that the shortage there was 20 per cent. This means that for every five jobs for artisans one is vacant. This worries and perturbs one and I am sure the hon. the Minister dare not relax. He also told us that the position regarding the professional staff was as difficult. He told us that the engineers joining the S.A. RAilways to-day are exclusively those who have been trained at the expense of the S.A. Railways, i.e. through bursaries, and that the S.A. Railways is not getting a single recruit from the engineering faculties of our universities—except, as I have said, those who go through the university at the expense of the S.A. Railways. This is a most serious situation, Sir. But what is more, half of those engineers joining the S.A. Railways resign; half of them do not stay with the S.A. Railways. This is tragic. But I agree with the Minister that in spite of this he should continue with his bursary scheme, because heaven knows where the S.A. Railways will end if they do not get new recruits by these means.

I was struck by an article about the staff position on the S.A. Railways which appeared in the Star, Johannesburg, on 17th November, 1967. I should like the House to listen to this statement so as to be able to assess properly the magnitude of this problem. A senior official of the S.A. Railways Administration said that the shortage of workers on the Western Transvaal System only was larger than the total number of unemployed throughout South Africa. Therefore the total number of unemployed in South Africa would be insufficient to fill the staff vacancies on the Western Transvaal System alone. This is a tremendous tribute to the economy of South Africa—hon. members opposite may take all the joy they can get out of this fact. But it also reveals in stark reality the staff situation on the S.A. Railways. If you read any authoritative statement on the position of the S.A. Railways, any publication by the S.A. Railways, you again and again come across statements by responsible men that they are worried, that they are spending sleepless nights on account of the staff shortage. The General Manager, for instance, on page 4 of his report for 1966-’67 says—

Staff shortages in many key grades continued to cause serious concern. The nucleus of experienced staff is dwindling, whilst the high turnover in the ranks of newcomers shows no signs of abatement. The total number of staff employed by the department at the close of the year was 221,256 as compared with 227,568 at the end of the preceding year, a decrease of 6,312 units.

And the Minister in his Budget speech tells us that of the white workers alone, of the people who cause the trains to move, 1,000 disappeared on balance during the past year. This too, is most disturbing. Let me, once again, quote from the General Manager’s report already referred to. On page 80 he says—

Despite substantial increases in salaries and wages with effect from the October, 1965, pay month and the department’s intensive recruiting efforts, the staff shortages in certain key grades such as firemen, guards, shunters, station foremen, electrical fitters, fitters, electricians and motor mechanics continued to cause serious concern. This was particularly the case on the Cape Northern, Orange Free State, Western Transvaal, Eastern Transvaal and Natal systems.

That is to say, virtually all over South Africa. Let me say once more that this is a matter of the most profound concern.

This shortage must have its consequences, consequences which are not always apparent. There is one consequence this House should know about, a consequence at which I was particularly concerned and a consequence to which the Minister should give more attention and take us more into his confidence. In his Budget he told us that the works sanctioned on capital account each year could not be completed in the year for which provision was made therefor. He told us that they have on capital account to-day a backlog of work to the extent of R471 million— works which are needed to enable the S.A. Railways to keep pace with the development of South Africa. The annual average allocation is only about R128 million and even, so the Minister pointed out, if no new items were added to the programme the S.A. Railways had enough work to keep it busy for several years. One of the major reasons for this is the shortage of staff. As a matter of fact, this is one of the most disturbing features of the Minister’s Budget speech. I can remember another accasion where the S.A. Railways could not do the capital work required of it. But then it was not due to a shortage of staff but because the Nationalist Government thought the previous Minister of Railways, Mr. Sturrock, was too extravagant in his plans. What was the result? The result was that Paul Sauer disappeared as Minister of Railways. Well, we do not want Ben Schoeman to disappear too, Sir, during the short time which is left for him in the Cabinet I do think he should do something about this.

This brings me to a point where I should like to put a few questions to the Minister in regard to capital expenditure. If the S.A. Railways can spend only about R128 million per annum, where is the urgent necessity which now compels the Minister to spend one-third of that allocation within one year on the construction of a new pipeline? Why is this so urgent, especially in view of the fact that the Minister told us that the present pipeline was working only at two-thirds of its capacity? It seems to me there is a little bit of slack still to be taken up! In his Budget speech he told us that crude oil was being transported through this pipeline. Why then not diesel oil? Further on in his speech he told us that he expected the pipeline to convey less fuel during the coming year which would result in an expected drop of R2 million in its income. This being so, why must this new pipeline be constructed and completed in one year? Or is there a reason of such a confidential nature that we cannot know about it? Or is it due to the fact that he has trouble perhaps with the present pipeline? Is the present pipeline perhaps developing faults so that an alternative line has to be prepared? Is he hiding something from us? I suggest to the Minister that if he expects us to vote one-third of the amount that can be spent within the coming year on the urgent construction of a new pipeline which on the face of it does not seem to be immediately necessary, he will take us into his confidence and give us more information, even though it may hurt him.

I now come to what is for me the 64 million dollar question: What hope does the Minister have, what prospects does he see for relief of the staff shortage on the S A. Railways? The Minister will agree that his problem in this connection is a national problem. Everybody participating in the economy of South Africa is short of staff. We simply do not have sufficient people to go round, especially people with the qualifications required to do certain jobs almost exclusively under the policy in South Africa to-day. What is the Minister going to do?

What prospects are there for the future? I read his speech very carefully, and I even read it twice, but I could not find any positive suggestion that offers the slightest hope of relief to the people of South Africa in regard to this manpower shortage on the Railways. I am very curious to know, seeing that we do not have enough people of the right colour to do the work required, what the policy of the Minister is to remedy this problem. I am not referring in particular to the aspect of colour, although it is important, and the Minister should not ignore it; but generally, what is the Administration’s attitude? I have here an extract from a speech made by Mr. Liebenberg of the Artisan Staff Association, a gentleman whom the Minister on previous occasions described as a most responsible and highly intelligent man, an assessment with which I agree entirely. This is what he is reported to have said on 11th July, 1967—

Compromises with the country’s traditional labour pattern would have to be made if the needs of industry were to be met. The labour shortage on the Railways, he said, was acute, and against the background of current expansion could reach crisis point unless a solution was found soon. Representatives of the seven Railway employees’ associations which constituted the Federal Council meet in Johannesburg on July 20th to discuss the shortage and recommendations will be made to the Railway Management after the meeting.

Then Mr. Liebenberg said this—

Little purpose can be served by attempting to avoid the obvious solution of making a more intelligent use of all the country’s manpower resources.

Now, it seems clear to trade union leaders and to business managers that a change in the labour pattern of South Africa, whatever the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration may say, is inevitable, and I think the Minister by bis actions proves that he accepts it is inevitable. While the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is taking Bantu out of Cape Town, the Minister comes with special Additional Estimates asking for thousands of rands to house more Natives to be employed on the South African Railways in the Cape Peninsula. Sir, he does seem to have glimmerings of insight in so far as this problem is concerned, and it is time that we are told by the Minister what his policy is in this connection for the S.A. Railways and Harbours. I want to know what the Minister’s attitude is to one of the most intelligent comments I have heard on this problem over the past 10 years. It is an absolute joy to read a statement like the one I have here before me by a very senior and most highly respected official in the employ of the Government. I refer to the statement made by the General Manager of Railways, Mr. Hugo, before the Federal Consultative Council of the Railway Staff Unions, as reported in The Star of 14th June, 1967. It comes as a flash of light into the intellectual darkness with which the Government is obscuring thinking in South Africa. Mr. Hugo said—

We and our children must equip ourselves to fulfil the role of leaders in all fields of activity in a multi-racial society …

Not a multi-national society but a multiracial society—

… in which we are in the minority. We have entered a new era in the history of our country which calls for a reorientation of our approach in regard to the deployment and use of our manpower resources. With our small white population and our rapidly expanding industrial, commercial and scientific activities, which call for more and more technologists, scientists and other professionally qualified experts, it is imperative that the brain-power and leadership potential of our people be developed and used to the best advantage.

Then he concludes by saying—

Let us not be timid in our attitude towards the trends of development which are in nature no more than the natural consequences of our advance as a self-reliant nation.

Here we have a gentleman whom we all respect, seeing in the pressures which will inevitably bring about a change in our labour pattern, not something to fear, not something to dread, not something to run away from, but an opportunity for higher standards for the white people of South Africa as well as others. He sees this as a challenge to the leadership of the white people of South Africa.

Now, what is the attitude of the Minister who is in close association with his General Manager? Has he got the same courage? Has he got the same courageous outlook that here is an opportunity for all the people of South Africa, and not a threat, nor a danger, nor instant disaster? Unless we can get clarity on this, we must all share the growing concern about the future of great institutions like the S.A. Railways when it comes to the manpower position. Wage increases are good and they may be necessary, but they alone cannot alleviate the problem that we have on the S.A. Railways and Harbours with this acute staff shortage. It is quite obvious that the competitors against the S.A. Railways for the manpower resources in South Africa will not sit still. If they find that as the result of this increase in salaries and wages given by the Minister they are running short of staff, they will put up salaries and wages which, like the Minister, they can pass on to the consumer.

There will be more inflation in South Africa and the competition for the inadequate manpower resources in the country will continue, and the Minister and his General Manager and his other officials will complain in public that they are being crippled because there are not enough hands to do the work required.

The time has come when we should have in this Parliament a moment of truth, a moment of realism. I appeal to the hon. the Minister of Transport, because of the respect I have for his intellectual honesty, to stand up and tell us what his attitude and his answer to the problems are. Let us stop playing about with the prejudices of the ignorant; let us seek the truth and face the facts.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he wants to overcome the shortage of manpower, he will have to do other things. He will have to look at some of the grievances and the complaints of his staff and improve conditions on the Railways for many members of his staff, because there is not the slightest doubt that there are many complaints which come to us as members of Parliament. Now we are in difficulties. I want to take the Minister into my confidence, as he sometimes takes us into his. We are in difficulties because the Minister has laid down, and understandably perhaps, that members of his staff should not come to members of Parliament with their difficulties. The result is that when railwaymen come to us, as they often do, we discourage them, except when it is a case of extreme injustice, where something has obviously gone wrong, and it is necessary to bring it to the attention of the Administration for it to be put right. Then, as the Minister knows, we make exceptions and bring these cases to him. Here I want to express my appreciation to the Minister for the frequent cases in which he grants relief where relief is necessary. Sometimes the Minister is a little obstinate and obdurate; generally, however, he does what is necessary. But the staff who come to us with their problems have to be warned that they are doing this contrary to the wishes of the Administration. I think that is wrong, because the Minister is losing a lot of information he should have. I can tell him that many of the staff will no longer go to a Nationalist member of Parliament. [Interjections.] But there are hon. members opposite who would genuinely undertake cases brought to them by railwaymen, but then they are the type of members who would warn the staff that they are not supposed to approach them because it is against the wishes of the Minister and the Administration.

There is not the slightest doubt that there are a great number of complaints from the Railway staff, which is reducing the popularity of the Railways as an employer, and those complaints relate mostly to questions of overtime, promotion, discipline and appeals. Rightly or wrongly, there is a belief amongst the staff that an appeal is a waste of time, on whatever grounds it is brought. There are other complaints, for example in regard to punishing people after they have been acquitted by the courts. Often the Administration takes it upon itself to find a man guilty and to punish him as if he were guilty of the crime of which he was proved innocent. So I can go on, but I prefer to be concrete. I cannot bring individual cases to the Minister, because that is not done, but I can give a general impression.

I want to give the Minister the example of the case of assistant engine-drivers in the Cape Western system. They have a problem. At the request of the trade unions concerned, the Minister has introduced a system of service-wide promotion. What has happened to these people is that some of them have been on the highest notch of their grade for eight years, but they cannot get promotion before going to the College at Esselen Park. But many other people with only three years’ service at the highest notch have been to Esselen Park from other systems, probably before this service-wide promotion system was introduced, and now people in the Cape have to wait while these people with much shorter service than they take the senior positions in the Cape Western system. I have had cases of men who have been stuck at the highest notch for eight years and more. I think that is the sort of thing to which the hon. the Minister should give his attention. There is much to be said for a service-wide promotion system but when it causes individual injustice the Minister should be astute, or the Administration should be astute, to avoid it.

Talking about that, Sir, I must say that it is shocking and frightening to realize that the S.A. Railways and Harbours pay people who do most responsible work. I was shocked to see what people in charge of trains as engine drivers were paid. This does not include the increases which are to come because we do not know what they will be, but until recently a man who became a learner engine driver was paid R90 per month and, if he was under 18 years of age, R75 per month which, for a start, is perhaps in order. But then when he qualified and became an assistant engine driver he was paid R120 per month, with annual increments up to R140 per month. If he became a senior assistant after some years he was paid R150 per month. When he became a driver in his own right, a position carrying great responsibility, he was paid R165 per month, and a special grade engine driver receives R195 per month—less than £100 per month. I want to know what possible attraction in the long run a job carrying that responsibility can have for people when that is the sort of pay they get.

It seems to me that what is needed in the S.A. Railways and Harbours very urgently is some system of job evaluation. I know that the Government does not like that. I know that the Johannesburg municipality undertook a job evaluation and the result reflected so startlingly upon the inadequacy of pay in the Public Service and in the Railway Service that the Government took away the right of municipalities to pay their own employees what they considered the job to be worth. Sir, when I see figures of this kind I would urge upon the Minister that the time has come to pay attention to job evaluation.

When one considers the staff shortages and the problems associated with them, one begins to wonder whether the increased productivity to which the hon. the Minister referred in his speech—he said that the staff could move 4 per cent more traffic despite their depleted numbers, which is excellent and most commendable—can be maintained. Are there not certain things that begin to warn us; are there not little clouds as large as a man’s hand on the horizon to which we should give attention? Let us look, for example, at the very interesting tables which the General Manager supplied to us in his latest report, at page 93. When one looks at the column “Surplus of earnings over gross working expenditure” one finds that this was R84 million in 1964, R80 million in 1965, R54 million in 1966 and then there was a slight improvement to R65 million in 1967. In other words, the earnings in relation to gross expenditure are decreasing. You also find, Sir, if you look at the ratio of expenditure to earnings that that ratio was 80.37 per cent in 1964, and it had gone up to 87.4 per cent in 1967. When I look at the percentage return on capital I find that in 1964 it was 5.94 per cent, in 1965 5.22 per cent, in 1966 3.36 per cent and in 1967 a slight improvement to 3.50 per cent but nothing like the percentage in 1964. Sir, those are little things that seem to warn us that perhaps the staff cannot maintain the strain to which they are being exposed.

One realizes that in order to be able to live decently, the engine drivers, like many other Railway employees, have to work excessive overtime. There is not the slightest doubt about it that the overtime demanded from the running staff and even certain clerical staff of the S.A. Railways amount to nothing but downright cruelty. Sir, I heard a conversation in one of the air freight offices on the subject of overtime. I was shocked to hear what was expected of clerks in the air freight offices. I heard them say that they welcomed this overtime at first because it meant a higher income and that they could buy curtains for their homes, but how now it was grinding them down; their families were up in arms; their wives were complaining and their domestic life was upset. It is not right and fair that people should be expected to work these hours. Sir, I am talking about the tremendous strain on the staff and again I would like to take one concrete example rather than to generalize. I want to remind the House what has been happening on the S.A. Airways. I am taking the overseas services for the moment. In 1962-’63 the S.A. Airways operated 3 Boeing 707’s and ran five weekly services to Europe. The next year the number of services was increased to six. In 1964-’65 the fourth Boeing 707 was introduced and the number of services to Europe was increased to eight. In 1965-’66, in April and November, the 9th and the 10th services to Europe were introduced. In 1966-’67 the 5th 707 and the Australian service were introduced. There are now 11 flights and there are soon to be seven 707’s; there is a service to the United States in the offing. There are more planes to come and quite soon we will have these huge, spectacular Jumbo Jets flying on the S.A. Airways routes. This is a most wonderful achievement. The heart of every South African beats proudly when he hears of it but, Sir, do we ever stop to consider that this tremendously expanding service, this Jumbo service that is being created in South Africa, has to be run by an inadequate technical staff because of the shortage of manpower, and that they cannot be expected to maintain the productivity that is demanded of them under present circumstances. I am told that the Airways technicians, on an average, are working 19 hours a day to keep the planes aloft. It is unbelievable. Perhaps it is an exaggerated figure, but even if the figure is not as high as that, there must be some substance in this statement about excessive overtime, because, Sir, here are some ascertainable truths: In 1962 the technical staff of the S.A. Airways numbered 1,326, and on the overseas services they were looking after three Boeings and five flights to Europe. In 1967 there were only 1,292 of these technical people, 34 fewer than in 1962. But instead of looking after three Boeings, they were looking after seven Boeings and 11 flights to Europe and a heavily increased internal service. Sir, how long can that continue? Can the hon. the Minister afford to expand and to expand and to introduce more flights to different parts of the world, to buy bigger and bigger aeroplanes and to expect the same small technical staff to undertake all the maintenance work that is necessary to keep the S.A. Airways one of the safest in the world as, thank God, it is? Is the hon. the Minister not taking an undue chance; is he not gambling with the safety of the S.A. Airways? What does he intend to do? What is the answer to this?

*An HON. MEMBER:

You may put up your own puppets.

Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

You can move your amendment now; you should have moved it an hour ago.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Sir, I am being warned by hon. members opposite to move my amendment. I move—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to go into Committee of Supply on the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from the Railways and Harbour Fund because inter alia
  1. (1) in spite of a record surplus, no relief has been provided for the users of the South African Railways and Harbours in order to reduce inflationary pressures;
  2. (2) no solution has been offered for the staff shortages on the South African Railways which are assuming most serious proportions; and
  3. (3) the unhealthy practice of under-estimating revenue and over-estimating expenditure persists.”.

I made the point that with these conditions obtaining on our Railways, efficiency must suffer. I want to give the hon. the Minister just one example to illustrate what I mean. You know, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House pick up the most interesting bits of information in the most odd places! In the Salstaff Bulletin for January there is a report of a meeting between the management and the committee of trade unions. This makes very interesting reading, and I was amazed to see that it has now become necessary to appoint on the S.A.R. & H. “emergency squads” of accountants to try and find out what is happening in various parts of the Railways. This is what they told the management—

Die tekort aan ervare personeel het ’n baie nadelige uitwerking op werkverrigting.

I cannot agree more. The report goes on—

Byvoorbeeld, ’n tydjie gelede moes die noodspan na ’n stasie gaan om die trokboek wat nie bygewerk was nie by te bring. Terwyl hulle met die trokboek besig was, het hulle gevind dat baie trokke vir lang tydperke op sylyne gestaan het en dat staangeld ten bedrae van R21,000 op dardie besondere stasie gehef moes word. Hulle het ook gevind dat daar sekere trokke is waarvoor daar geen rekenskap gegee kon word nie en waarvoor daar nie inskrywings was nie …

This is how the report goes. Well, I think this is unbelievable. The General Manager gave a most interesting answer. He said—

Wanneer u die saak bespreek, help stellings soos dié ons nie, want ons weet dit reeds. Die vraag is net of u as vereniging iets aan die hand kan doen om die probleem op te los.

It is a counsel of despair, and the General Manager has my sympathy because the Government is not doing anything to meet this problem. The General Manager of Railways, like the manager of every major business in South Africa, faces this intractable problem of what to do about the manpower position.

I also allude in my amendment to the fact that we deplore the fact that there is no relief for the railway users. It would have been wonderful if the Minister had used some of this huge surplus, if he had utilized some of his high expectations for the future, to give relief where relief was due. It is now not possible. Perhaps it is not too late to appeal to the Minister to see whether he cannot give relief to the users of the S.A.R. by implementing some of the recommendations of the Schumann report to which the hon. the Minister is committed in principle already. It may be that in some cases he is committed to a long-term implementation, but he has given us to understand that these things will happen quite soon. Time does not permit me to go into details, but I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider as urgent reforms for example the charging of a special tariff for full truckloads. I know the Minister will say many of the loads conveyed by the S.A.R. are already conveyed in full truckloads because that is also convenient for both the consignors and the consignees. But there is not the slightest doubt if he were to follow recommendation No. 765 of the Schumann Commission he may find there will be much greater use of full truckloads, greater efficiency on the railways, cheaper transport for the users, and relief of the manpower pressure experienced on the S.A.R. It takes fewer people to convey a truckload from one station to another than it does to convey a number of small consignments in one truck, involving continuous handling, loading and unloading and despatching, as is done to-day. I think it will be opportune if the Minister will give us his views on this aspect.

Then I think the Minister should have considered, and should still consider, the question of wharfage dues, especially for incoming goods, on coastal traffic, if possible. I regret I do not have time to expand on this, but I know the Minister knows about this, he has read the Schumann Commission’s report, he has received recommendations about it, and think the time has come that he should positively react to the suggestions that have been made.

I wish I had time to speak to the Minister about problems which will become quite real, perhaps not this year or next year, but quite soon all the same. I refer for example to the question of containerization. There are, however, other stages of the debate when these points can be discussed. In the minute left to me, I want to ask the Minister the followng. In view of the fact that the passenger services of the S.A.R. are dependent for their profitability to such a large extent upon third-class passengers …

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Not for their profitability. No profit is made on third-class passenger services.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Oh, well, Mr. Speaker. [Time expired.]

*Mr. J. C. B. SCHOEMAN:

Mr. Speaker, it seems our country is so privileged we are able to experience various high-water marks. As we heard recently, there were achievements outside this House in the field of medical science. This year we have a festive Budget of the S.A.R. & H. inside this House. I am referring to it as a festive Budget because there are three highlights as regards the achievements of the S.A.R. If the figures in the White Book and the Brown Book are taken into consideration, the White Book which deals with expenditure on current revenue and the Brown Book on capital expenditure, it is clear that the Railways is poised to reach the R1 billion notch for the first time in its history. This is truly a tremendous and striking high-water mark which cannot be allowed to pass unmentioned. We understand that airways passengers have passed the million notch. Almost a quarter of our entire population undertakes at least one trip by air in South Africa each year. That is why I say it is truly a festive occasion and an achievement which is deserving of mention as well as acknowledgment from the general public in our country.

In this House too we have just witnessed the setting up of a new record. We have seen how the main speaker on the Opposition side, in the light of these circumstances and achievements, has had the least to say in the longest possible time. He set up a new record. The hon. member for Yeoville knows that I am not an unfriendly person, but he must forgive me if I express the hope that his successor will at least make a better attempt.

The Opposition set up a second record in this debate, which is that they submitted the longest list of items of gossip here this afternoon which has ever been quoted in this House. It seems to me their new role is to serve as conductors for grievances and criticism from outside. I am referring to allegations concerning cases where people with three years’ experience were promoted above persons with ten years’ service. I want to express my doubt in regard to that statement. To me it sounds far-fetched and rather risky.

We have had a whole series of references, complaints and criticism here. Before I go into it in detail, Mr. Speaker, you will grant me an opportunity, since I am rising for the first time as the successor of my colleague and a friend, to say a few words in his memory. What our deceased friend, Gideon Knobel, did he never did flamboyantly, or with any strong element of drama, he did it with an intensity of spirit. That was how we came to know the late Gideon Knobel. What he offered both outside and inside this House was sincerely his. It was decorated with ribbons of obligingness and dedication to the matters he was dealing with. His basic philosophy of life and its task was always illuminated by a feeling of great piety towards his family, his Government and his nation, and for that I remain grateful to him as my predecessor.

In addition it would also be an oversight on my part if I did not refer to both the form and the language in which the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister, as well as the Report of the General Manager of Railways was expressed this year. I found it particularly striking on account of the choiceness of language, clarity of thought and the attractive and logical setting out of chapters and paragraphs. If definitely redounds to the credit of the tradition of this House and the reputation of the industry concerned. As far as I am concerned, I want to express my thanks and felicitations. An excellent Minister creates an excellent administration, in the same way as a capable management must inevitably achieve good results. That is the main point under discussion here this afternoon.

I now want to confine myself to the criticism expressed by the Opposition in the person of the hon. member for Yeoville. Before dealing in detail with a few of his statements, I want to refer in passing to the extremely superficial remarks which he made here so casually. He referred, inter alia, to the large profits which were being made on the pipeline and in regard to which our domestic taxpayers were allegedly being taxed unnecessarily. Inter alia, and I give him one point for this, he referred to Pretoria where the people there have to make the best of a rather high cost of living. He was doing so with a view to the coming election at Pretoria (West) of course. I would just like to react briefly to that by giving him the assurance that the voters in Pretoria (West) would rather prefer to pay the present price of petrol than to have to pay more for important and essential provisions. That is my reply, which will also be confirmed by the voters of Pretoria (West) in the near future. He made an equally pious reference to a double pipeline which must suddenly, within a year, be completed. He wanted to know where the sense was in that. He expects the Minister to supply a statement and a reply in this regard. I really did not think the hon. member for Yeoville would put forward such elementary arguments. After all, it was made very clear in the Press and elsewhere that the entire purpose of the second pipeline was to differentiate between raw products and refined products, and also to alleviate the pressure on the Durban harbour. All innocence, he pretended to know nothing about that. He made a tremendous point of it. In contrast to the clarity which we have had up to now in our reports and discussions, we are saddled with the turpidity and vagueness of the thoughts of the Opposition side. It puts me in mind of a joke which I heard, if I may take a page from the book of our former State President. In the thirties Jan Visagie went to look for work on the “Railways”. He arrived at a small country station and on a certain day he had an appointment there with the section manager and the station-master. They thrust a lantern with red and green glass panes on the sides into his hands and took him to a railway crossing. Then they said to him, “Jan Visagie, if a wagon with a load of mealies drawn by a team of red Africander oxen should cross here on its way to the grain elevator and a train is bearing down from the left, show us what you would do with the lantern”. He then said, “I shall take my lantern and wave the red side three times in the direction of the engine driver”. Then they said, “Very well, but if the red oxen belonging to Oom Koos are on the rail way line and the train is bearing down from the right, what will you do then?” He then replied, “It is easy. I shall simply flash the red light to the right-hand side”. They then asked him what he would do if the red oxen were on the railway line and there was a train coming from the left side and another train coming from the right side and his lantern had no paraffin in it. Then Jan looked down at his old friends, his veldschoens with the turned-up toes, and he swallowed and said, “Oom, if there were two trains coming and the red oxen of Oom Koos were on the railway line, I would run home as fast as my legs could carry me and call my sister Sarie and tell her that if she had never seen a ‘royal smash’ before, she must come and see one now”. This is the kind of mentality displayed by those people. Their function is to spread sensational stories amongst families and unenlightened people. They supply the voters of South Africa with the proof that they cannot offer a solution for a specific and difficult situation, but that they are people who run away.

I should like to elaborate for a moment on the inflationary implications of the Budget, as the hon. member for Yeoville tried to put those implications across here. In the first instance we are dealing here with a wage increase which will go hand-in-hand with increased production. The Budget speech showed that on the civil engineering side the mechanization of track maintenance has enabled the Administration to decrease the number of its white and non-white staff considerably, despite an increase of almost 60 per cent in the gross ton-mile traffic hauled on our lines. According to the report of the General Manager the number of platelayers has been reduced by 600 and Bantu labourers by 10,000 in this respect only, which points clearly to increased production—something which we would all like to see as a counteraction to inflation. This is not a gift, it is well-deserved compensation which our Railway officials have earned themselves here. It is not a present from Father Christmas as the hon. member for Yeoville tried to imply here. I want to go further and point out that in the field of Railway repair work there has been an increase from 20 million to 33 million freight ton-miles over the past ten years, that is, an increase of 62 per cent. The number of coaches in service have only been increased by 40 per cent. The staff in the artisan’s and handyman’s grades, which the hon. member for Yeoville is so fond of rubbing in, have decreased from 1,180 to 871, in other words 26 per cent, during this period. I want to assert that this is truly a remarkable achievement. To me this does not look like the achievement of frustrated people who are working themselves to death doing overtime, and who, as the hon. member asserted here, are having sleepless nights. No, Mr. Speaker, these are happy, dedicated people, with a clear grasp of their task, who can accomplish these kind of achievements.

During 1956 workshop expenses totalled R6.4 million. In 1966 it was R9.9 million. That gives us a cost structure in cents per coachmile of .585 and .52 respectively, which means a decrease of 11.1 per cent in repair costs per coach-mile over a period of ten years. This is one more example of increased production, and the dedication, acceptance and utilization of more scientific methods by our railway staff.

I want to mention a further interesting example. If we compare the safety index of 5.6 with 24 outside industries, Mr. Speaker, it serves as additional proof to us that, comparatively speaking, the railwayman and his Management is achieving five times more than is the case in outside industries.

The productivity of the railway employee has increased consistently, and comparatively rapidly, during the past few years. According to the staff particulars in the annual report of the General Manager (Addendum 38, page 137), the Reports of the Controller and Auditor-General (paragraphs 61 (2), page 129) and the labour statistics which appeared in the quarterly report of the Reserve Bank (December, 1967, page F.73), the total number of staff in the employ of the Railways since 1958 has decreased by more than 5 per cent, while the goods transported per ton-mile, increased by 51.6 per cent, and passenger journeys by 74 per cent. Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Yeoville and those with him should try and make me believe that this is not a record, that this is not an achievement which is deserving of acknowledgment and which calls for higher compensation on moral and economic grounds!

Conditions during the first few years after the war (the time of the United Party Government) taught us that labour had become a bottleneck which we would apparently always have to contend with and that it was therefore necessary to ensure that the available people were more rapidly and more efficiently trained so that the best possible use could be made of their services. This is precisely what the Management and the hon. the Minister have done during the past two decades.

This view of the matter, plus the bonus system which was introduced in 1960 has ensured a production which is almost 50 per cent higher than the normal production of existing workshops. Mr. Speaker, these are considerable achievements, and these are things which we ought to take into consideration before we enter a debate in this House. There is a saving here of R50 million on Administration and capital expenditure, which would have entailed the costs of at least two new workshops, as a result of this increased production, better mechanization and organization. These individuals and these departments deserve praise and acknowledgment of our country and this House.

Further interesting particulars, Mr. Speaker, are those in regard to safety measures and the protection of workers against accidents and injuries, factors which play such a consider able role in the smooth functioning of our workshops. The measure of success achieved appears clearly from the fact that accidents are now being counted in hundreds per year instead of in thousands, as was the case during the time of the United Party. Mr. Speaker, I emphasize “in terms of hundreds per year instead of thousands during the time of the United Party.” I go further. Time lost amounts to only 6,000 days per year instead of the 45,000 days 20 years ago in the time of the United Party. The achievement in this field is six-sevenths better than it was in their time. The railway employees have for these and other reasons complied adequately with one of the most important requirements, that is to ensure that wage increases do not cause inflation.

To come nearer home, Mr. Speaker: In regard to the harbour staff in Table Bay we read in Die Beeld of 28th October, 1967—

The shipping tonnage handled in the Table Bay harbour during the past four and a half months since the closing of the Suez Canal is almost approaching the total tonnage handled during the whole of the preceding year.

A whole year’s contribution was made in four and a half months in the form of increased production, the most important means of combating inflation. It was made possible and delivered by the staff of the Railways themselves. From 6th June, 1966, to 27th October, during the same year, a tonnage of 37½ million had already been handled as against 43 million during the entire year up to June. That is sufficient proof that the wage increases of the officials could be justified in terms of acknowledged economic as well as moral laws, and for that reason ought to be welcomed and praised. The Minister and his Department are undoubtedly on the right path and deserve our support and acknowledgment in this.

Talking of inflationary tendencies: We must take into consideration that a large percentage —between 8 and 12 per cent—of these salary increases are being earmarked each year for pension contributions and for investments with public debt commissioners for the general development of this country. This is money which is indirectly channelled to the benefit of the officials. That in itself, together with the increased income tax assessments of the more than 115,000 white employees on the Railways, comprises quite an important neutralizing factor against inflation. In addition there is in any case less danger that the extra money which will come into circulation will increase the demand for consumer goods to such an extent that it will exceed the supply. We read in the quarterly report of the Reserve Bank of December, 1966: “At the end of September this credit was R177 million, or nearly 10 per cent below the permissible level.” That is the ceiling set by the Reserve Bank in regard to credit provision by the ordinary commercial banks. This report stated that in December, 1966, this amount was already 10 per cent below that ceiling. Since then it has improved even further. In December, 1967, it was only R162 million as against R177 million a year previously. I maintain that the argument that these salary increases are conducive to inflation is rendered groundless by counter-arguments such as these.

I spoke about high-water marks. We have the assurance of the Minister that these increased salaries will not be derived from increased tariffs, but will be drawn from the Rates Equalization Fund. The Minister saw fit to increase the Rates Equalization Fund to R74.8 million, the highest balance in the history of the Fund, and not with a view to luxury but with a specific purpose, in accordance with economic laws and in accordance with a sense of responsibility towards the future of this country. This Fund is intended to form a buffer in a slack period as an insurance premium for difficult times in order not to cause disruption in the other sectors of commerce and industry. It is in conflict with all economic laws to draw from this Fund in times of prosperity, and to decrease the Fund for the sake of increased profits amongst the private sector only. The hon. member for Yeoville and those with him stated here, while he was waxing lyrical and trying to intimate that the professional staff of the Railways was being drained away, that they were exacting increased tariffs and increased costs from the consumer. Then it was not sympathy for the railway worker or arguments against inflation. No, then they were looking for something sensational: Sarie, come and look at the “smash”. Then they did not entertain this sense of responsibility and this balanced concept in regard to this matter. No, then they had other motives. They are being reproached with this and the election in Pretoria (West) will confirm this. This contribution to the income of the railway officials constitutes no danger that they will live extravagantly; it merely enables them to make up a backlog. If we also take into consideration the fact that this advance is being paid in 12 instalments, spread throughout the country, and distributed amongst 220,000 officials, then it is no argument to say that it may possibly be conducive to inflation. As regards the argument in favour of tariff decreases which was raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, I merely repeat that there is no sector of our economy in the country which is to-day experiencing a slack period. The Railways, as the national transport industry, and the building industry are the most sensitive barometers for any signs of recession, but there are none. That is why a consideration of a decrease in tariffs is misplaced and would be poor policy, typical of the Opposition. We are used to that, but it still does not mean that we should follow such an unworthy example; we know our responsibilities. We foresee difficult years. In regard to devaluation, tariff protection by Britain, competition on the overseas market as far as our minerals are concerned, we foresee difficult times. We stand to harvest less than half the previous year’s mealie crop. The Railways must in its policy make provision for all the unforeseen circumstances, and it has done so. it has done so to an appreciable extent. It has done so in such a way that it inspires confidence for the future, by bolstering up its Rates Equalization Fund until it stands at the highest level it has ever been. This is no coincidence. It is leadership. It shows comprehension, understanding and an insight into the future, and of one’s own responsibility. We praise the Minister and his Department for that.

My time is running out and I want to conclude by expressing my dissatisfaction at the democratic system which, in this modern time in which we have a prestige state such as the Republic, expects us to bear the responsibility for the ineffectiveness of the Opposition. After all, they form part of this Parliament and they do in fact have a national responsibility towards this country and its people, but what do we find? A lot of little boys, with a stocky little leader at the head, tramping about in a pool of water to see who can leave the biggest mud tracks, the hon. member for Yeoville or the hon. member for Durban (Point), and what is the result? A pool of mud and the sediment in that pool obliterates the tracks and the result is a quagmire. [Time expired.]

Mr. W. V. RAW:

I think it is just as well that the last speaker’s time expired before he dragged the level of the debate down more into the mud. Even if the hon. member is accustomed to dragging things into the mud, I do not intend to follow him. His trouble is that he prepared a speech based on the expectation of an attack on the inflationary effect of the Budget, but when he found that that was not the theme of the hon. member for Yeoville he had nothing left to say other than a few sneering remarks, meaningless and unfounded, about the level of the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. But he made little or no attempt to answer the points raised. After all, if the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville was so poor, it should have been no problem for that hon. member to answer it. But instead of that, he tried to spin out time by telling pointless stories, waffling around and eventually giving up and following his prepared speech which had very little to do with the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Let me deal with one or two of the points made by the hon. member. He spoke of a “feesbegroting”. I will come back to that in a moment. The jubilation of the hon. member and the other hon. members opposite is understandable. We do not begrudge them their jubilation. They, like us, must have heard the pleas of the railway workers. Even they, blind as most of them are to the realities of South African life, must have been able to see the hardship pressing down on the railway worker.

They must have seen the tension building up and the strain coming to breaking point. No wonder, after their frustration, that they are now able to relax and hail the belated relief which has been given to the railway workers in this Budget, as we do who pleaded for it and asked for relief a year ago, while those hon. members sat dumb … [Interjections.] Sir, they can laugh. Last year I challenged any member of the Government to get up and join us in our plea for assistance to the railway worker to enable him to meet the rising cost of living without working incredibly long and unbearable hours of overtime. Not one of them got up and joined us then. Now they rub their hands and say: Look what we have done. But a year ago, when we pleaded for it, they shouted us down and said we were just playing politics. The hon. member for Randburg said that this was not inflationary because the railway worker has earned the extra increases by his greater productivity. But that is exactly what we said a year ago. The hon. the Minister himself—and I have here his Budget speech of last year—said—

In undertaking a task of such magnitude, their devotion to duty certainly earns the recognition and appreciation of the whole country.

We agreed, and we said: Make it a tangible recognition, something that can be of benefit to them, other than the “Dankie, Baas” speeches of the members of the Government. A year ago the Minister recognized, and we recognized, the greater productivity of the railway worker and his right to an improvement. Now that it comes a year late, the hon. member for Randburg says it is deserved. [Interjection.] What were the other points made by the hon. member? That the inland user would happily pay more for petrol rather than for other essential items. We did not ask them to pay more for other essential items; we asked for relief in the inland price of petrol, and we will tell that hon. member’s constituents that he thinks it is a good thing that they should pay more for petrol. Then he spoke of accidents and the reduction in the number of accidents. Last year the Minister took exception when I referred to reports almost every day in the Press of accidents. I claimed then that there must be some correlation between the long hours of overtime and the strain on the personnel and the number of accidents. The Minister took exception and criticized me very strongly for doing so. Because these reports have continued, I asked a question in the House earlier this year, asking the number of accidents and the injuries caused to the staff and to the public last year. The Minister thought he would be very clever, I presume, and referred me to the report of accidents tabled in the House, which is not available in printed form but which one has to study in the office of the Clerk of the Papers. It is a report of 178 pages, listing each accident individually, with no summary whatsoever. He assumed that nobody would take the trouble to plough through it to get the figures out. Well, I did. I ploughed through it for hours and I summarized the accidents of the first three months of 1967. These figures are not available and do not become available in this form. I found that in 1967 there were 1,663 accidents on the Railways. The hon. member who has just sat down said that the accident rate had dropped to a few hundred.

Mr. J. C. B. SCHOEMAN:

In the workshops.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

He is picking out one particular section. I divided these accidents into level-crossing smashes, comprising a total of 71 in the first three months, collisions comprising a total of 18, falls from trains, 85, shunting accidents, 57, and so it goes on. Over 100 persons were hit by trains. If you multiply this by four to give an annual figure, you get a total of 364 people killed and 1,248 injured. The total killed in the first quarter is 88, and the number of injured is 312. I have broken this down further into staff and public to see the further effect that it has, but I do not intend to go into those details at this stage. However, I quote these figures because the hon. member who has just sat down, had the temerity to talk about the “vast reduction” in accidents. If he compares that figure with the accident figures shown in Table 39 of last year, he will find a somewhat different picture from the year before. If he wants to say that this is only in regard to the workshops, then it is typical of the attempt on the part of the hon. member to run away from the broad issues and to hide behind particularizations.

Sir, I said that hon. members on the other side were entitled to jubilation because of their relief. But I want to charge the hon. the Minister with brinkmanship. Last year we referred to the increasing strain on the Railway personnel; we pointed out the danger to the Service as a whole of expecting them to go on and on carrying a greater and greater burden. Our views were strengthened during the course of the year, but the hon. the Minister played a dangerous game of brinkmanship in that he tried to hold the position as long as he possibly could without giving relief. He tried to hold it until he could hold it no longer without risking a break-down of the complete Railway Service. The people who were the victims of this brinkmanship were the Railway personnel. I want to pay tribute to those Railway officials in positions of responsibility in the Railway Service whom I had the opportunity of meeting last year. The Minister is aware that the General Manager arranged a tour by the Select Committee where we had an opportunity of meeting most of the heads of the Railways and of the Airways. I was certainly deeply impressed by the sincerity of the people in whose hands rests the responsibility of making this vast organization work. I was impressed by their dedication, but I was also impressed by the frustration of these officials and by the fear which was expressed so often that their dedication and sacrifice would be in vain because the structure upon which they had to operate was in danger of collapse through lack of trained staff. Sir, the hon. the Minister knows that that is the position particularly in the engineering department, and particularly in the specialist departments. It is no good having a few dedicated heads if they have not got the staff to carry out the job. It is that structure with which the Minister has been gambling for the last year. I believe he has waited too long. He may think that it is 23.59, a minute to midnight, but for many, many people it is a minute past midnight; it is too late for those who have already left the Service, and for those who have committed themselves to leave the Service. Those people have gone; we cannot get them back again, but if attention had been paid to their problems a year ago, then I believe that many of them might not have left the Service and that we might not have had the present serious situation. I think it is common cause that the situation to-day is serious and it is not necessary for me to try to prove it to-day.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, now that he is doing something, not to forget the vital middle group in the Service, the group with 10 to 15 years’ service. So often in the past the man at the top has received recognition, and inducements have been given by big improvements at the bottom of the pay scale, inducements to attract the necessary new personnel, accompanied by rewards for people at the top for good work done. But I believe that the middle group, the group with 10 to 15 years’ service, is a group which has been tragically mishandled both in the Railway service and in other Government departments. Sir, this middle group is a group with established responsibilities. They have homes and families. They have children at school; they have committed themselves to liabilities within the family structure. They have contributed to pension funds, contributions which they cannot afford to sacrifice. They are therefore more or less a captive group of workers. It is impossible for them to make a new start. They are too old to start again without risking the security of their families. Sir, the Railways know it, and when it comes to recognition these people are often the last people to get any reward because, as I have said, they are a captive group of workers. I have so often heard the complaint from this group: “When are we going to get recognition; we who cannot do anything else, who have no other future except in our present field of employment and who are always overlooked?” Sir, these people in the middle group are the bosses of tomorrow. It is no good having people at the top who are efficient if you have not got below them a sub-structure of people to take over. I am not going to deal with particular fields here this afternoon. The Minister knows that there are certain fields where all the people in the top positions are approaching the point of retirement over the next year or two. The Railways have simply not got the trained personnel to replace them. If many of these people at the top do not carry on for the additional period after retirement the Railways will not have substitutes with the necessary training to take their place. People have been resigning from the middle group because they have been neglected, with the result that you have a vacuum in a vital part of the structure of Railway personnel.

Sir, this Budget will go a long way towards assisting railwaymen in the financial field, and the Minister will doubtless be thanked by hon. members opposite. We have only had three “dankies” in the last speech from that side, but as hon. members on that side run out of ideas I forecast that the number of “dankies” will increase rapidly. The Minister will take the credit. He created the situation in which the railwaymen found themselves but he is now being hailed as a hero for rescuing the Railway servants by giving them pay increases. But, Sir, it is not just the question of pay that is the trouble; economics is only one of the problems. I believe that the problem of overtime, to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred, is one of the issues to which the hon. the Minister will have to give his very, very serious attention. The strain which is being placed on many workers is becoming unbearable. Only yesterday morning I was talking to a man who had a breakdown last week. He said to me: “I just cannot carry on any more. I work every week-end, every Saturday, every Sunday, and every week-day until 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. I cannot go on but I have to because the whole of my section depends upon my being there. If I am not there it will collapse.” Sir, this is the position in department after department. Men are loyally carrying a burden which physically they cannot carry, a burden which they cannot continue to carry without physical and sociological breakdown. When you talk to the wives of railwaymen, you find that they are the ones who are suffering.

An HON. MEMBER:

The lonely women.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

My hon. friend correctly says “the lonely women”. There are many women who are lonely to-day because their husbands are having to work 14 to 16 hours a day. Sir, this question of overtime is not something which the Minister can shrug off. He cannot expect to compensate the railwaymen for overtime by just increasing their pay. Something will have to be done. Then there is the question of promotion. I do not have the time to go into that question this afternoon. I hope to be able at a later stage to deal with certain aspects of it. There is considerable dissatisfaction over promotion. The disciplinary system is another issue which is creating a great amount of hardship, bitterness and resentment. Other speakers on this side will deal with that, but I believe that is another factor which requires attention. Another issue is the question of unnecessary transfers. People are transferred simply for the sake of transfer. In other cases railwaymen are not given promotion unless they are prepared to accept a transfer. People who are thus affected are often the most valuable workers. They are people who have bought themselves a house, who have families and children at school, and they are then faced with the choice either of accepting a transfer or losing promotion. Many of them resign rather than disrupt their families and their social life. They resign rather than give up the social circle and sport clubs to which they belong. They have to choose between resigning or losing their chance of promotion because they cannot get promotion in their own area. That is another ground of complaint. Then, Sir, there are certain inconsistencies, which I do not have time to deal with at the moment. I refer, for example, to the Natal allowance, a special allowance which is paid in order to attract people to fill vacancies in Natal, but that allowance is not payable to all the people in Natal. It is only payable to some. Then there is the lack of recognition of initiative. I believe that initiative is not rewarded as it should be. There is also the lack of reward for inventions. People feel that they do not always get the recognition which they should for applying themselves conscientiously and with dedication to the job. Then there is the question of training and losses of staff, a matter that we will have to go into further. The situation as far as apprentices are concerned is very serious indeed. There is the question of engineers, to which I have already referred. There is the question of housing, where at least an effort has been made this year. I want to draw attention to the Minister’s attempt to make out that large numbers of houses were provided last year.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Not last year. I gave the total number of departmental houses.

Mr. W. V. RAW:

What the hon. the Minister did not mention was that last year only 35 additional departmental houses were provided. A globular figure was given here but no mention was made of those which had been withdrawn from service. The net increase for the whole of last year was 35 departmental houses. There are some 2,400 people on the waiting list for homes and only 35 houses were provided last year.

Then there is the question of pensioners to which other members will refer. Sir, these are the human problems facing the staff. They are problems which will not be wiped out simply by a 10 per cent or 12 per cent increase in wages. I believe that the hon. the Minister will have to give us far more details about these other issues which require his urgent attention if he is going to solve this staff problem, if he is going to plug the gaps which otherwise will make it impossible to carry on with the administration. Next year a smaller number of staff will have to carry an even greater burden than they did this year. This year a staff reduced by 1,000 carried an increase of some 4 per cent or 5 per cent in revenue-earning ton miles. You have fewer people carrying a bigger burden. These people cannot be expected to go on and on carrying this load as they have been doing.

Finally, and in the few minutes left to me, I want to refer to the fallacy that this is a good Budget. The hon. member for Yeoville dealt with this fallacy at some length but received no reply whatsoever from the now absent chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, no doubt because he did not expect to have to reply to that type of question. Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that any managing director or any sales manager of any firm who forecasts a small profit or a small loss only so as to be able to give his boss a pleasant surprise at the end of the year is likely to get his boots shot off. I myself was a sales manager and the first time I produced an unexpectedly high sales figure compared with the forecast I was just about fired. The boss said he did not want a pleasant surprise at the end of the year but accurate figures on which to work on. He pointed out that if I gave him figures which could lead to a wrong costing of the product the firm would have to overcharge and resultantly lose customers.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Just think what a pleasant surprise it would be for the United Party if they could win Pretoria (West).

Mr. W. V. RAW:

We shall worry about that when the time comes—and about Swellendam too. There is one thing I want to say to the credit of the chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, the hon. member for Randburg, and that is that he is a good sportsman. But he is not a good estimator of votes. In regard to Johannesburg (West) last year his forecast was nothing better than the hon. the Minister’s financial forecasts. So, if that is an indication of his expectations in regard to Pretoria (West), then I am afraid he is in for a shock. The error the Minister made in his financial forecast is an error which, as the hon. member for Yeoville pointed out, has been loaded off onto a captive users’ market. In a firm a sales manager or a managing director would be sacked if he overcharged his customers, and thereby lost customers. But in this case the customer is a captive customer. There is a monopoly and, consequently, he has to buy from the S.A. Railways. He has got to use the S.A. Railways. So, where you have this kind of bad budgeting the effect is to penalize the railway users of South Africa. The Minister, however, said this surplus was fortuitous; this was due to fortuitous circumstances—in other words, to something unexpected, to something fortunate which cropped up. But on the very first page of his Budget last year he said: “The prospects for the coming year are encouraging and there is considerable optimism after the copious rains”. But this year he regards it as being fortuitous. Let us see what these fortuitous circumstances are. Firstly—“the resuscitation of the agricultural section”. Last year the Minister in his Budget said that: “good financial results would be aided by a resuscitation of the agricultural sector”. Another fortuitous circumstance is, he has told us, “the relaxation of import control”. Yet last year in his Budget he said: “The administration’s finances will be effected principally by maize exports and the extent to which advantage is taken of the relaxation of control to increase imports.” Another fortuitous circumstance he said was the “building up of trade inventories”. But last year he already said that “the building up of trade inventories would contribute to a better financial result”. Stocks of strategic commodities, he says, are also fortuitous. But is he not a member of the Cabinet and had the Cabinet not decided to stockpile? Does the S.A. Railways itself not stockpile essential spares? The Minister knew about this, but now this is “fortuitous”. The last fortuitous circumstance is the increase in harbour activities arising from the closure of the Suez canal. So, what do we find, Mr. Speaker? In four of the five fortuitous circumstances are the matters which the Minister last year already expected to contribute to an improvement of the financial position of the S.A. Railways. If that is not bad budgeting I should like to know what is.

INTERRUPTION OF DEBATE *The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Mr. Speaker, I move, as an upopposed motion—

That the debate be now interrupted in order to afford the Minister of Finance an opportunity to make a statement.

Agreed to.

GOLD PRICE *The MINISTER OF FINANCE:

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to make a brief statement.

The Government has taken cognizance of the decisions of the Governors of Central Banks contributing actively to the Gold Pool, as announced in the Press after their meetings on 16th and 17th March in Washington, D.C.

While the Government, a founder member of the International Monetary Fund, continues to fulfil its obligations in terms of the Articles of Agreement of the Fund, it reserves its rights in regard to the above-mentioned decisions of the Governors of the Central Banks until greater clarity is obtained concerning events affecting the marketing of gold.

Bearing in mind its international obligations, the Government will, as ever, determine its policy with a view to securing the maximum long-term advantage for the country as a whole.

It has already been announced that the Government considered it advisable to close the Johannesburg Stock Exchange for to-day and to prohibit any dealings in stocks, shares and unit trust shares. The particular reason for this decision is that South Africa finds itself in a special position due to the importance of transactions in gold shares on the Stock Exchange. Banks, however, have been permitted to continue their normal foreign exchange dealings.

In so far as South Africa henceforth obtains a higher average price for its gold output on the free market, it is of importance to point out to investors that the gold mines will not retain the whole of the additional profits. Firstly, the effect of the existing tax formula on the gold mines will, inter alia, be that for the industry as a whole, the major share of any additional profits will have to be paid over to the State by way of higher income tax and lease payments. Secondly, the Government will, if necessary, consider further measures to contain the inflationary consequences which may flow from increased earnings on gold sales.

In conclusion the Government wishes once more to emphasize that it continues to adhere to its position that a formal revaluation of all currencies in terms of gold is a fundamental prerequisite for the solution of the present international financial problems.

The Government is watching the position closely and will issue further statements in this regard when necessary.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—RAILWAYS (Debate on motion to go into—resumed) *Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Durban (Point) made a very derogatory remark about the new chairman of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours. I do not think it is worthy of a front-bencher and someone who has so much experience as the hon. member to treat a person who has just—and quite justly— been elected to chairman of the Select Committee.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

What did I say?

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

You know what you said.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Yes, but what did he say about “dragging into the mud”?

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

The hon. member began his speech by saying that the National Government had, through the hon. the Minister of Transport, put great pressure on the railwayman from time to time by not conceding to the demands of the United Party for increased wages and alleviation of overtime. The hon. member for Yeoville stated that the one minute the Government was drawing the reins tight, and the next giving them slack as far as the railwaymen were concerned. That amount of R165 which the hon. member mentioned was ridiculous. That was not for wage increases.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

It says so in the White Book.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

It was in the Minister’s statement.

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

Not only is the hon. member making an incorrect statement, he is also making himself ridiculous. As regards the complaints about the overtime which is being worked, I want to invite the hon. members for Yeoville and Durban (Point) to stand up in their benches and say: “We suggest that overtime and Sunday time be done away with.”

Mr. H. M. LEWIS:

They must not work excessive overtime.

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

The proof is there, Mr. Speaker. Although hon. members on the opposite side pretend to be such champions of the railwayman, how many of them represent constituencies in which there is any considerable number of railway officials?

The hon. member for Yeoville also alleged that this side of the House did not receive correspondence from railway people, but that the letters were addressed to members of the Opposition. This is not so. The barometer of anybody representing a railway constituency is the quantity of his correspondence. Since as long ago as 1950 I have been representing such a constituency and my barometer still stands at the same level.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Are those people allowed to write to you?

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

Of course. Look, I am not prepared to reply to nonsensical questions.

The hon. member also made a great fuss about the accidents. Did the hon. member ever take into consideration the number of train miles being covered, and the number of passengers being transported, and compare those particulars with road accidents? If he did that he would find that our railway accident figure is the lowest in the world. Because that side does not have anything with which to conduct a railway debate, they come forward with complaints of that nature.

The hon. member for Yeoville also spoke of the numerous “complaints” from our railway people. In that regard he referred to overtime. I must admit that I have received complaints in regard to overtime, but the complaints were that the men were sometimes working insufficient overtime. The railwaymen maintain that they want to work more overtime so that they can have a better and easier life. Why can they not be allowed to do so? Any healthy man can put in two hours overtime after working eight hours. If the United Party worked longer hours there would not be so few of them sitting on the opposite side.

The hon. members for Durban (Point) and Yeoville also complained about railway housing. I shall refer to housing figures later on.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

I welcomed the concession.

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

That is so, yes, but you said that there was so much still to be done. I shall indicate in a moment how the housing position has improved over the past few years.

Hon. members on the opposite side also criticized the Budget. Apparently they do not want to be surprised! The hon. member for Yeoville also said that wage increases were being granted from time to time but only when something was in the offing. He implied that they were only being granted before an election. But the fact of the matter is that wage increases are granted whenever circumstances have allowed, and not when an election is in the offing. The National Party is not concerned about increasing salaries just prior to an election because the National Party has the support of almost 100 per cent of the railwaymen.

When I think of the hon. the Minister and his staff, as well as the General Manager to my left here, I feel I must congratulate them on the excellent results they have obtained during the past financial year under difficult circumstances.

Hon. members on the opposite side stated that the hon. the Minister’s Estimates were unnecessarily low. But it puts me in mind of a golfer …

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Like the Prime Minister!

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

No, that is uncalled for. It is unmannerly of you. It puts me in mind of a golfer who had only one idea in his head, and that was that he would make a hole in one, and discovered in the long run that he had to pay seven or eight strokes.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Transport. No man in the world would be able, in such a big undertaking, to predict within R10 to R15 million what the actual results would be. It is impossible. It depends upon local and national circumstances; when one draws up Estimates there are so many circumstances that have to be taken into account. One does not know what can happen. I want to make special mention here, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that during 1967 we received the greatest degree of co-operation from the S.A. Railways when that tremendous drought was prevailing. During this present drought which is again prevailing in many parts of the country, we once again received co-operation from the Minister and his Department. The criterion to-day is: Can all the goods be transported? I made inquiries from the heads of Departments, and I do not think they will furnish me with incorrect information. The information I have is that, with the exception of a few isolated cases during peak periods when everything could not be done at once and there was a small delay, calculations have shown that all traffic was handled rapidly and properly during the past year.

As regards the shortage of manpower. The hon. member for Yeoville levelled tremendous criticism at the Minister in that regard. It is true that there is a shortage of manpower. We do not deny that. This is particularly the case in the Railways, but we must now find the causes. The hon. member for Durban (Point) also mentioned causes, namely that of a house-owner living in Noupoort or Parow who has to take his promotion in some other place. The hon. member’s request was that he should be able to accept his promotion in the same place. That is not always possible.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

If there is a vacancy!

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

Yes, you should have added that “if there is a vacancy”. One cannot simply transfer a person and put another in his place. The man holds the same post. But the hon. member is now trying to make propaganda by saying that obstacles are being placed in the way of promotions. There are cases where people, because they are happy in one place, prefer to stay there and not to accept promotion. But that is not what that man was complaining about.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

But he does not get it even if there is a vacancy.

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

As I have already said, despite the shortage of manpower, the Railways have been able to deal with the traffic. Of course, it is necessary to think along certain lines. The hon. the Minister, with his staff and the General Manager with his staff, thought along those lines, i.e. of mechanizing large sections of the work …

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

And leave the capital works.

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

We understand. It is for that reason that the Railways to-day is still able to handle its traffic without any delays. Then this must be added to that. The productivity of each railwayman has meanwhile improved and increased a great deal. The people are render ing better services to-day. A man will not render better services if he is not being properly treated. He is being treated well; that is why he is eager to work. As for me —if I am not treated well by my chief, I will have no desire to work. That is why these people are keen to work.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Are you being treated very badly?

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

No, I am not being treated very badly. I do not want it like that. Mr. Speaker, with the rapid development in our country, economic and otherwise, traffic has of course increased proportionally. I should like to mention a few figures here. I wanted to do so just now in regard to accidents, but I did not have the figures in front of me then. But now I want to furnish you with the figures, Mr. Speaker. In 1964-’65 425.5 million passengers were transported by rail. And that is quite a lot of passengers. In 1966-’67—this is the latest figure I have been able to obtain from the Department—the figure was 464,380,000. That is an increase of almost 38 million over a period of two years. That is why I say that, as a result of this tremendous passenger traffic on the Railways, the accidents—we are sorry about those which took place—are still at a minimum in comparison with those in other countries.

As regards air traffic, the position is the same. The number of passengers in 1964-’65 was 625,000. In 1967 almost a million passengers were transported—an increase of almost 270.000. All traffic, by rail or by air, has, as I have mentioned, with the exception of a few cases in peak periods, been dealt with in the minimum possible time. There were no delays in regard to goods such as livestock, wool, coal and others.

In order to show further how air traffic has increased: In 1962-’63 the figure was 93.5 million tons. In 1963-’64 it was 99.2 million tons. In 1965-’66 it was 106.76 million tons. In 1966-’67 it was 111.69 million tons. That is to say, since 1962-’63 there has been an increase of almost 20 million tons. That is why we, and I think the same ought to apply to that side, find it a privilege and a pleasure to congratulate the persons who are responsible for that transport.

The hon. member for Durban (Point), as well as the hon. member for Yeoville, mentioned wages. I stated at the outset that I would return to the discussion of wages, because I expected hon. members to mention that topic. I want to state candidly now that representations for increased wages were addressed to the Minister last year, by the Railway staff associations in fact. He then said “No.” “This is not the appropriate time.” He did not promise to do so and then neglect to do so. He told them that it was not the appropriate time to give them wage increases. “You must help to combat inflation.” The railwaymen did so and we are grateful to them for that. We congratulate the railwaymen in contributing their share to that. Now that we have practically—I do not want to say finally— coped with inflation …

*Mr. T. G. HUGHES:

Where do you get that from?

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

Try and find out; then you will also know something. Now that the situation has improved, the Minister sees his way clear to doing so, and we are grateful for that. I have just been to one of the railway towns in my constituency, and I can assure the Minister that his Budget met with a very favourable response. They are very grateful. I just want to point out that in 1964-’65 railwaymen earned R294 million in salaries and wages. Sunday time and overtime was included in that. According to the latest figures for 1966-’67 they received R342 million, that is to say, an increase of R48 million since 1964. These figures are in respect of wages. The hon. member for Yeoville has said that the railwaymen are having such a hard time. We are all having a hard time. Things are not always as we would want them to be, but sometimes we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. I also want to say that the United Party must examine its own conscience. They were also in power years ago and I do not think that they will come into power again soon. How did wages then compare with present wages? I shall take the lowest grade, namely that of a grade one clerk. When they were in power a grade one clerk received R1,408.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

No, there was no such thing as a rand.

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

I have the correct figures before me. You can check them yourselves. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not be silly now. In 1967 a grade one clerk was receiving R2,875.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

What could he buy with it?

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

I shall tell the hon. member. The hon. member probably wants to know how the cost of living increased, Because that is the crux of the whole matter. I want to tell hon. members that the cost of living increased to a far lesser extent than wages did.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

But by how much did the national income increase?

*Mr. M. J. DE LA R. VENTER:

Unfortunately, I do not have the figures in this regard. In 1948 a stoker received R64. To-day a stoker is receiving R147. An assistant foreman received R1,558 in 1948, and today he is receiving R3,350. A first-grade clerk then received R2,228 and to-day he is receiving R4,000. We should therefore not always be ready to throw stones and say that nothing has been done in the meantime for the railwayman. He is being looked after in so many other fields as well.

I come now to housing. If I were to compare the situation in regard to housing as it was when I came to this House for the first time with the situation to-day, then one must congratulate the former Minister and this hon. Minister. There is still a shortage of housing. It is not yet the case that there are houses which are standing empty. There is still a shortage of housing, but it is being gradually supplied as circumstances allow. Since the introduction of the house-ownership scheme, 15,555 railway houses have been registered and the amount spent on this was R97 million. Between 1954 and 1967, 12,138 loans were granted at a cost of almost R120 million. At present approximately 1,300 houses are being constructed. On 31st March, 1967 there were 23,108 departmental houses for Whites. But I have even more figures. Under the house-ownership scheme during the period 1962 to 1967, more than 4,000 properties were purchased to an amount of R30.5 million. In terms of the proprietary right assistance scheme, 7,328 loans have been granted to an amount of more than R8 million. From 1962 to 1967 1,539 departmental houses were built at a cost of R13.5 million. We see therefore that in spite of the fact that there is still a shortage of housing, the Department has in this respect done as much as it could.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) and the hon. member for Yeoville said that the railwaymen had so many complaints. I just want to mention that the complaints on the part of the railwaymen to-day are at a minimum. In my opinion most complaints to-day arise in respect of transfers. A person no longer wants to live in a certain town and wants to go to another place and ask for a transfer. But since the necessary vacancy is not always available, he may perhaps have to wait until a vacancy occurs. There are many people on the Railways who also makes mistakes. Such a man is suspended and then he wants to return to the Railways after a few months. Those are the sort of complaints the Railways are receiving to-day. But there is no general complaint of dissatisfaction. I do not know whether hon. members read a letter which appeared in one of our daily newspapers. It was written by a Mrs. Wakefield of Rossburgh, Durban. She wrote to say how satisfied the railwaymen there were (translation)—

I want to inform you how proud I feel of the South African Railways and also of the salaries our people are getting if only they want to work.

This deals with the productivity of the railwayman who is not keen. Any man can at any time enjoy a good life if he wants to work. This is how she concludes her letter—

So, thank you very much, Mr. Schoeman, for everything you have done for us. I only hope you read about the uniforms.

In regard to the uniforms, I just want to ask the hon. Minister this. It is a general desire amongst our railwaymen that they should be given a lighter type of uniform for the warm weather to enable them to resist the heat to better effect. The present uniform is good for the winter months, but in my opinion it is too warm for our warm weather. In addition I want to ask that since houses are being built to-day, garages should also be built for the railwaymen. Many of them live far from their work and most of them have motorcars today. In my opinion it does not do the motor cars any good if they have to stand outside during the summer as well as the winter months. It is the general request, particularly from Noupoort Rosemead and Burghersdorp that provision should be made there for garages. In conclusion I should like once again to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his brilliant Budget and also the General Manager and his staff for the work they have done.

Mr. H. M. TIMONEY:

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member for Colesberg and I take it in turn to follow one another in rising to speak in this debate. I should like to correct something he said about the hon. member for Yeoville. When the hon. member for Yeoville was quoting the increases in the salaries of Railway staff he was actually quoting from the Minister’s memorandum. He did not get the points he made out of the air. These figures actually appear in print, if the hon. member cares to look at page 33 of the memorandum. The increases appear there for everyone to see. It might have been purely through coincidence, but if you examine when the increases were granted, you will find that they invariably came when an election was approaching. That is why we surmise that there may soon be an election during this year. [Interjection.] This is a world full of surprises and the Government might be in for a great surprise. They say the strength of the chain depends on its weakest link. I do not see the weak link here to-day, so anything can happen.

Much has been said about overtime. One hon. member opposite asked whether we would support a motion to do away with overtime on the Railways. Of course that is a silly question. It is like asking a man whether he has stopped beating his wife. The position is that the whole of the economy on the Railways is developing into an overtime economy, which is unsound. You find that under the Factories and Building Work Act and in the industrial agreements there is a limitation on the overtime that can be worked. It is an offence to let a man work more than a certain number of hours overtime. If he wants to work more than 10 hours overtime a week you have to get permission. But working over time on the Railways is becoming a habit; it is an overtime economy, and you find that the railwayman over the years has been budgeting on the basis of the overtime he earns, which is quite wrong. If that is the case, one should look at his salary. Is he earning enough, or is he living beyond his means? I do not think any of them live beyond their means because, besides having an overtime economy, the majority of them have a husband-and-wife economy; one finds that the wife has to go out to work and still they struggle.

Then the hon. member referred to the number of accidents. A considerable amount of research has been done into the reasons for accidents. The C.S.I.R. is doing research into road accidents at the moment. It is interesting to note that they put the cause of most accidents down as being liquor, but they also say accidents are caused by people getting tired and dozing at the wheel. The Road Safety Council says people should avoid driving at night when they are tired. So you see the relationship as far as the Railways are concerned. I think that is an item that has to be watched.

The hon. member also spoke about housing. I agree with him, but I have one complaint. We find that very fine railway houses are being built, but the rotation of repairs takes so long that you find good houses deteriorating. The houses are repaired over a number of years, according to a fixed budget. I would also like to add my plea with his for garages to be built at these houses. I think that is a necessity. I think if you build these houses, money should be set aside for their upkeep.

As far as uniforms are concerned, the railway uniform is a standard one which is more or less the same all over the world. I believe that if you were to change the uniform radically so that the uniforms are lighter, they would look scruffy. I think we have to be very careful there, but that certain grades should be given protective clothing or coats. After listening to the hon. members for Randburg and Colesberg, one feels that they think this side of the House has no sympathy with the Management and the railwayman, but that is not so. We are very proud of what they have done. With the shortage of staff, we are proud of their achievements. They have increased the turnover on the Railways with a greatly reduced staff.

As we meet here to-day, a cloud has come over world currencies due to the gold problem, and to some extent we meet in a situation that is unreal. The Minister produced a Budget here which is like the curate’s egg, good in parts. I have said before that the Minister seems to lack confidence either in the country or in the Railways. He produces a conservative Budget. He always plays safe. As the hon. member for Yeoville has said, he over-budgets to make sure that he will not be in the red. He always says in his Budget speech that the past year was favourable, but he must put on the brake for the coming year. He says we must be careful and he budgets for a deficit which turns into a substantial surplus. Last year when I told him that he would have a substantial surplus, he said he sincerely hoped so. It has turned out that we were correct. If the Minister looked at the past record of his budgeting, he would find that over the last 18 years he produced surpluses on 10 occasions, so he really has nothing to worry about. But he must keep out of the red, and he runs a monopoly in that he has no competition. He feels that he should be on the safe side, and he budgets accordingly. Now he has a surplus of R35.2 million, but we have not ended the year yet and possibly this surplus may go up to R40 million. He has used this money in the way we advised him to do. He is going to put money into the Rates Equalization Fund to write off his possible losses next year, although I do not think he will have a loss. [Interjection.] Over the years we have advised him to make more use of the Rates Equalization Fund instead of passing it on to the consumer. The hon. member for Yeoville said that the last increase in rates and fares could not have come at a more unfortunate time. To-day, when we look at the drop in first and second-class passengers, one wonders whether the public has not felt the pinch and that is why there has been that drop in the number of passengers. With the surplus that he has here, one would have thought that the Minister—he has now a fantastic amount of R78 million in the Rates Equalization Fund —would have done something to reduce fares and tariffs.

I want to make a plea again for the Western Cape, because I do not think the Minister really has much confidence in the Western Cape. When he built the line to Montagu Gardens and I asked him to extend it to Saldanha Bay, he said he did not think I would see anything happening there in my time. However, things have changed and the Minister may find himself in the position of having to continue that line because of the enormous development taking place there. But in the Western Cape we suffer. There is so much legislation dealing with the restrictions on Bantu labour and the Minister knows that he has had to import Bantu labour to carry on his work here. Moreover, we do not have the advantages of a border industrial area, although I would say that we are a Coloured Border industrial area. We do not have the advantages of the port rates at East London and Port Elizabeth, and something should be done for us. If the policy of the Government is to decentralize industries, one would have thought that the Minister would have considered what he could do for Cape Town. We are losing industries by the day. A number of the larger industries are considering moving from this area on account of the high railway rates we have to pay. We have just lost a big motor-car works and there is a major industry in Blackheath which I hope we will not lose, but I have been told that the railway rates will be the decidng factor there, due to the extra cost of moving raw material from the Transvaal and transporting the finished goods to the Transvaal. I would plead with the Minister to give consideration to the Western Cape and see whether he can relieve us of this great burden because of our distance from the market on the Rand. We suffer in this way because if you look at the Budget you will find that very little is being done even in regard to cutting down ton miles. The building of the Hex River Tunnel has been shelved for financial reasons, but we see in other parts of the country that they are building railway lines. We have no grouse against that because we in the Western Cape feel that the country must go ahead, but at the same time we must not forget those parts of the country that require assistance. The North-west Cape for example. They are building a line in Natal to transport ore to Richard’s Bay. Yet we have a huge mineral complex in the North-west Cape and the line finishes up three-quarters of the way and a request has been made to the Minister from time to time again to have a look at the line in the North-west Cape and to see what he can do about it. The method used in judging whether a line will pay or not is wrong; it depends on the potential. You cannot tell me that the line between Empangeni and Richard’s Bay is going to pay immediately, but eventually the development that takes place will make that line pay. So I hope that the Minister will do something about the North-west Cape.

Now we come to the increases to the Railway staff. As was said by the hon. member for Yeoville, we welcome these increases, but we feel that they came with too much of a bump at one time. We have suggested to the Minister over the years that if he had a graduated cost-of-living allowance tied to the cost-of-living index, and if he had given the members of the staff increases from time to time, that would have been much better. When we had the last major increase we told the Minister that he could practically go back to the negotiating table and start negotiating new increases, and we were quite right. Now we have given them this increase at present, and the Minister will be faced within a very short time with a request for adjustments and further increases. We have not had the details of these increases placed before us, but I would like to join with the hon. member for Durban (Point) in making a plea for the railworker, right at the bottom of the rung, and for some substantial increase in his wages.

He earns very little; he has to bring up a family and in nine cases out of ten his standard of living is very low and he does not work the same amount of overtime that is worked by people occupying higher positions.

Then I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should look at the salary scales of his professional officers, the key staff, the young executives, the future managers, the future chiefs, the future system managers of the whole Railway organization. He can ill afford to leave these people and he must look at their remuneration once again. If their salary scales are not sufficiently attractive he is going to continue to lose these people. We are continually told by members on the Government side that commerce and industry take away our best men, but commercial and industrial people are not philanthropists; they are there to make money and they pay their employees according to their worth and that is what should happen in the Railway service. Sir, I was one of those who went on the tour which was arranged for the members of the Select Committee. Wherever we went we heard that the Railway service was continually losing men occupying top positions, and one became rather depressed at the thought as to who was going to take over the running of the Railway service in a few years’ time, because the older people are getting older and their places will have to be taken by younger people. I think the Minister will have to go into this question very carefully. He may be tied to fixed salary scales but I think he will have to go to the Cabinet and impress upon his colleagues the necessity of keeping these people in the service and of keeping them happy.

This question of loss of staff is one which must be causing grave concern to the hon. the Minister and the management. It is difficult to run the railways when there is such a serious shortage of staff. It is costly to train specialists in the Railway service. It is not always inadequate wages which cause a man to leave the Railway service. I come into contact with quite a number of railwaymen in my constituency and elsewhere, and when you talk to them about their problems you find that they have very strong feelings about the application of the disciplinary code. Cases are continually brought to Members of Parliament but it is difficult to quote names because of the fear of victimization on the part of the staff. Like the hon. member for Yeoville, I too have found that when individual cases are brought to the notice of the Railway administration, their representations are treated very sympathetically, but what distresses members of the staff is the petty little pinpricks that they have to put up with. Notwithstanding the bonuses and the fringe benefits that they receive, it is these little pinpricks which are making many railwaymen leave the Service, not only artisans but other railwaymen as well. What do you find when you speak to people who are about to retire from the Service? I have been to a number of parties which have been arranged for people who are about to retire, and invariably when you ask them whether they should like to return to the Railway Service, their answer is, “Never again; not under present conditions”. These people, however, will not come forward with their complaints because of their deep-rooted fear of subtle victimization.

Sir, when the hon. the Minister looks for staff he must look at his own house and ask himself whether it is in order. I know that there is the closest co-operation between the railwaymen and their representative associations. Their complaints are put forward by their associations but the trouble lies with the application of the disciplinary code. When an artisan or another member of the staff leaves the Railway Service, he probably not only earns more money, although he may not get the same fringe benefits, but he does not have to put up with these pinpricks. I would like to prevail upon the hon. the Minister to consider the question of appointing a commission—not a departmental commission because I would not like the staff to feel that there is any fear of bias—to go into the operation of the whole of the disciplinary code. I am sure that such a commission would find that there is a great deal of room for improvement and that the application of the code leads to lots of trouble. I think this is something which is lowering the morale of the whole of the Railway Service, and which must be dug out by the roots before it ruins the whole of the Service. Sir, there was a time when people were very proud of the fact that they were railwaymen. To-day you find that there is not that deep loyalty to the Service amongst the majority of the members of the staff that one would like to see. Sir, I say this without in any way reflecting on the Management. I know they do their best and that they try to help in every way. There is a terrific amount of paper work involved in going on appeal, and it is very disheartening for railwaymen, when they have done all this work, to find that their appeal is rejected and that they have no further redress. The result is that their dissatisfaction grows into a cancer.

Sir, those of us who went on the tour arranged for the members of the Select Committee regarded it as a great privilege to go on this tour. We were taken through Railway headquarters and looked after very well. As the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said, we met senior staff members; we visited all the establishments; we saw the very large workshop at Koedoespoort we saw the airways workshop and the various operating sections of the railways. Like other members, I was very impressed with this very vast organization that has been built up over the years and the loyalty of the senior staff. When you go through the Planning Section, you realize what great difficulties they are faced with. They approach things in a practical, businesslike manner, but then they are also faced with political aspects over which they have no control. These people try to plan to the best of their ability; they collate information from all over the country, but then the Railway Service is such a colossal machine. You have the railways, the road motor transport service, the harbours and the airways and now you have the pipeline. It is such a colossal machine that one wonders whether the time has not come to reconsider the whole set-up. It is like the house that Jack built, the Railway Service gets bigger and bigger every year, and I think the time has come to have a new look at the whole organization. After all, commercial firms have a look from time to time at their organizations, and I think the time has come to do the same as far as the Railway Service is concerned. I was very interested to read a newspaper report of an interview with Dr. Marais, Chairman of the Marais Commission, in Pretoria. The report reads—

Transport upheaval necessary: “My own impression is that the development during the next 30 years will be at an even faster pace than during the past 30 and we must be geared to this concept.” Dr. Marais said that South Africa might have to invest more heavily in a coastal shipping fleet and also in extensive harbour development to handle the giant tankers of 100,000 tons or more. With no navigable rivers the country has to rely on road and rail transport, and both would have to be expanded greatly. If it was intended to exploit the massive deposits of iron and other ores, the introduction of pipeline transport, wider gauged railways, longer trains and bulk loading of cargoes at the ports would have to be studied.

Sir, from this one gets some idea as to what the report of this commission will be like, and one gets rather depressed when one finds in the Brown Book that we are still going to buy or that we have built coaches and steam engines for two-ft. narrow-gauge railways. Sir, has the time not come to scrap these narrow-gauge railways? Let us face the fact that it is going to be expensive but in the long run it will pay. Is it not time we scrapped the two-ft. gauge railway and advanced with the times? Let us have another look at some of our branch lines which do not pay. Let us examine the whole of the Free State complex with the various branch lines and see whether we cannot link them up. The complaint that one gets from people in the Free State is this: They say, “The railway line finishes five miles away and I have to go all that way round to get to it”. Surely it is time we had a good look at our whole system and scrapped those lines that have to be scrapped. I think the Government would get all the necessary support from this side of the House if they decided to do so. If we thought that the scrapping of certain lines would give us a brighter economic future, we would have no hesitation in agreeing to the scrapping of those lines. Sir, this is being done all over the world. The hon. the Minister told us here some years ago that no more steam engines were being built, and yet the Brown Book tells a different story. It shows that we are not going forward; we are going backward. I think Dr. Marais is correct in saying that we must think along new lines. We would like to see the General Manager of Railways as the chairman of a big transport organization. Let us split our Harbours and our Airways and put our pipeline under the Minister of Economic Affairs. Let us run them as separate entities. You cannot mix them up in one big conglomeration such as we have at the present moment. Those, Sir, are my thoughts as far as the Railway Budget is concerned.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to each of the Opposition speakers who spoke here. Each one came forward with the same complaint. The complaint of the hon. member for Yeoville was that the Railway people are not allowed to complain, and yet all the hon. members come here and tell us of a great many complaints of which they have knowledge. This shows that these people are in fact complaining, but hon. members said that they were not allowed to complain.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

Do you never do anything that you are not allowed to do?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

According to hon. members of the Opposition the Railwaymen are complaining about promotion; they are complaining about salaries which are too low; they are complaining about overtime which they must work and which they regard as a cruelty. Actually, each hon. member on that side monotonously repeated the same complaint here. The Railwaymen, according to them, are complaining about housing; they are complaining about the discipline being imposed, and the hon. member who has now just spoken, asked for a commission of inquiry into Railway matters. He also complained about appeals.

The Railways, as the hon. member for Salt River said, is a formidable organization; this no one denies. There are more than 113,000 white persons in the service of the Railways and 107,000 non-Whites, a total of 220,000 for whom the Minister and his personnel are responsible. What does the Railways offer its officials? The hon. member for Yeoville said that the time had come for the hon. the Minister to do something to satisfy these people; they have grievances, and unless these grievances are removed, the Railway officials will not be satisfied and the service will eventually collapse. I can assure hon. members on that side that the hon. the Minister, the administration and I are as concerned as they are about the staff shortage, not only in the Railways but in the whole Public Service. There is also a staff shortage in the private sector, and it is the employer’s task to try and satisfy his employees as far as possible. Salaries and wages are not the only considerations. One cannot satisfy any man simply by paying him a salary or a wage.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

It helps.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

That is why the railway service offers its officials so many other additional benefits, which I want to mention here. In the first instance there is the superannuation fund, financed by the administration on a rand-for-rand basis. No railway employee, especially those who enter the service at an early age, need concern himself about what will happen to him when he retires one day. The money which he receives from the fund may not afford him a large income, but he does know that he will have something on which to live when he retires one day. There is also the widow’s pension fund. The official’s wife knows that when he passes away one day, she will be cared for. There are also the sick fund benefits: these are tremendous benefits for the officials. If any of us, or a Government official, should take ill, there is always the anxiety about whether the medical expenses can be met. Good provision is being made for the railway official by means of the sick fund. They also have travel concessions. There is the free pass for the employee and his family. They also enjoy concession facilities. This is a very great privilege. When a person wants to relax, when he wants to go on holiday for a while, he and his family can make use of these benefits, benefits which people in the private sector do not enjoy at all.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

But it does not help if the man cannot obtain leave.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The official can obtain leave. Each year every railway employee must take a specific or certain period of leave. I therefore maintain that every railwayman can obtain leave every year. No one is prohibited from taking his leave when he has a right to it. In addition there is sick leave. Ample concessions are made when an official takes ill and can no longer render service. Actually, these sick leave benefits are more generous than in any other sector of the Government Service. They also enjoy good benefits if they are injured on duty. They are covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it is true, but more is done for officials who are injured on duty than is provided for in this Act.

I am now returning to the official’s leave, and the benefits of his vacation savings bonus. The official receives this money before he goes on leave and it enables him to cover his expenses.

Then there are the house ownership schemes. I make so bold as to say that if there is one Department which really cares for the housing needs of its officials—more so than any other Department—it is in fact the Railways. I have a large number of railway employees who are voters in my constituency. If I think back to what the housing position was earlier and I compare it with the present position, I come to the conclusion that there is no comparison to be made. When I see what attractive houses our officials are obtaining to-day, I am forced to concede that this is indeed an inducement. Many of their houses are better than mine on the farm—and I think I have a good house. I do not begrudge them that. I do not begrudge them those houses.

Another benefit is the Railway recreation clubs, a benefit which the ordinary person does not have and for which ordinary people in the cities and towns envy the official.

Next I come to the protection of their rights. Since I have been dealing with railway matters and files have been coming to me, I have been really amazed to see that each railwayman, from the lowest to the highest, has the right to take his case even as far as the hon. the Minister, if it is necessary. They have their staff associations, six or seven of them, that serve the interests of each group of employees. When the employee feels that his rights are not being served there, he then has the right of appeal, even as far as the Minister, if it is necessary.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

As far as the board.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

As far as the Minister. He can appeal to the board, but the Minister makes the final decision. I am on the board myself and I know what goes on.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

The matter only goes to the Minister in certain cases.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

When any employee in any service has the right to air his grievances to his superior, to his organization, and if need be to the head of that organization, namely the Minister, then he is satisfied. They are making use of this right, and they are making good use of it.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Please explain the procedure which is being followed.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

He submits his complaint and the complaint goes from one person to another, all the way up, until it reaches the Minister. [Interjections.] The railway employee has the right to request an interview, and it is granted to him. He can state his case. If that channel is open to him, then nothing further is necessary. I want to say that our railway people would be bitterly disappointed if the Minister should, for example, appoint a commission to investigate complaints in the S.A.R. I think that they will be bitterly dissatisfied because they are satisfied with the present system. They are satisfied that they can bring their problems before the trade unions. They can report their common problems to this quarter, problems in respect of their salaries and their conditions of service; they can take any matter affecting their interests as far as the Minister. They can also appeal against any ruling.

There has also been talk here of victimization. No, I do not believe that they have reason to be afraid of victimization. I know the Minister; I know the General Manager, and I know that if there is anyone who insists on seeing every letter which comes to the Railways with a complaint, it is in fact the hon. the Minister. I wonder if any hon. Opposition member has ever addressed a letter to the Minister upon which he has not received a courteous reply and to which the Minister has not devoted his full attention? This being the case, one feels that each employee has the right to take his case as far as he can.

Let us discuss this question of the employees further. Hon. members opposite asked that the people be better trained so that they can work better. But we do have a training system for our railway employees. There is the in-service training where each employee is trained in his trade in his chosen direction by properly qualified persons within the service, and where he receives the necessary guidance. Then we have the training college at Esselen Park. I have a report here in my hand dealing with the achievements there over the past year, and it appears that there were 74 instructors at Esselen Park, while 2,450 employees registered for a large variety of courses in all the different divisions of the service. They received their training there. A great number of them were exempted from writing examinations because this was not necessary after they had completed their training. Others again had to write examinations. That is how the people receive their technical training there while in the service.

Then there is the bursary scheme which the hon. the Minister mentioned in his speech. Each year a large number of bursaries are made available, not only for students who wish to study engineering, but also for other avenues of study in which students wish to qualify themselves for service in the Railways. There are many branches in which qualified people are needed. They are not only sought on the technical level, but also on other levels. There are facilities for the training of persons for degrees in Economy, people whom we need. We need lawyers too, and they are also being trained. Even post-graduate bursaries are granted to graduates who wish to study further, even overseas. These are ample bursaries. I have been informed that certain persons have already obtained their Master’s Degrees in this manner. These are all people whom the service needs. The time is past when the attitude prevailed that the railwayman was the porter on the station, the engine-driver, the station foreman or the station master. That time is past. The railway service has become a scientific service. The ordinary worker can no longer be employed in the service unless he is properly qualified and trained to do the work which is expected of him. All this is being done to qualify our people for service on the Railways, and the training is being done thoroughly.

The railwayman’s standard of living has increased tremendously. I have relations who were in the railway service, I often visited them and I saw what standard of living they maintained. I often visit my voters who are employed on the Railways and it is always such a pleasure for me to see what decent houses they live in. Inside the house one finds decent furniture, even an attractive radiogram. They have all the conveniences they need. Their standard of living has improved with the years, and I do not begrudge them that because they have earned it. I therefore do not doubt that the people are happy. They can give their children the necessary education and learning. The Railways even assists them with the education of their children. The railway employee’s prospects are just as good as in any other branch of life. The Speaker of the House of Assembly was a railway employee and he has advanced to the position of Speaker of this hon. House—and he is a capable Speaker! Our Minister was a railway employee, and he is a capable Minister! There are other hon. member here as well who were railway employees. I have no doubt that where the Speaker keeps order here and the hon. the Minister is the leader of the House, the Minister concerned is just as capable of coping with the railway service. To-day a man need not be ashamed of being in the railway service. The training of the railwayman is specially directed towards enhancing production. While we have less people in service than we should like to have, the production per unit must be increased. This is what is happening in practice, and that is why the services continue to operate.

I wonder if we are expressing sufficient appreciation for what the Railways are doing. Considering that every imported article and every article manufactured in South Africa is handled by the Railways, from the docks to the most outlying regions of the country, every pound of sugar, every match, as the saying goes “from a needle to an anchor”, thousands of packets and millions of tons, we can only stand amazed. And yet we are so inclined to find fault and to complain if a package is lost. Think of all the post and the large number of passengers being transported, not only by train and bus, but also by aeroplane. During the past year almost a million passengers have been transported by our Airways. But if one man’s seat should be incorrectly reserved, the fat is in the fire. Then he complains that the S.A.R. is not worth anything and is not fulfilling its function. Then complaints are made that the trouble is the result of a staff shortage. In this connection I think that the hon. member for Yeoville said something very disgraceful. He asked who was going to man the new aeroplanes which the Minister is buying.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I did not say “man”; I asked who would maintain them.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The aeroplanes must be manned in order to be maintained. Very well, the hon. member asks, who is going to maintain them? He said that the staff would be technically insufficiently equipped and that this would then be hazardous.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

He never said anything of the kind. He said that they did not have sufficient time.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

The hon. member should go and consult his Hansard.

I am quite capable of hearing and understanding, and what is more I also know a few words of English. I also write down what hon. members say. His words were “they will be technically insufficiently equipped”.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I deny it immediately.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

His words were: “They will be technically insufficiently equipped”.

Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

The technicians.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, whether the technicians are inadequate or whether the pilots are inadequate, it would point to a flaw in our service. May I use the words “it will be dangerous”. [Interjections.]

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order!

*An HON. MEMBER:

Did you use the word “dangerous”?

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Yes. Mr. Speaker, you now know what the hon. member said, and he must now deny it. He said that the Minister was gambling with the safety of the Airways.

*HON. MEMBERS:

Yes.

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

I deny it.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Very well, Mr. Speaker, with a view to the excellent record of our Airways through all the years, is it now fitting to say to the outside world that the Minister is gambling with air safety?

An HON. MEMBER:

That’s not nice.

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

That’s not nice. Mr. Speaker, when I think of the thoroughness of our officials, when I see how thoroughly they are doing their work here and prepare it for us and I see how thoroughly they are doing their work out there …

*Mr. S. J. M. STEYN:

You are demanding too much!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

… I think it is something we should appreciate. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that we expect too much. I want to point out, in connection with overtime, that no official is compelled to work overtime and that that story concerning the accidents which result from the fact that the officials are overtired, too exhausted, is incorrect. I have made inquiries. We also deal with complaints and disciplinary appeals every day. It is a fact that, for example, after an engine-driver comes off duty he should rest for 12 hours before going on duty again. Well, six hours is sufficient sleep for me and four hours is sufficient rest. He is not compelled to go on duty before those 12 hours have elapsed, but I will tell you how things stand. They request to go on duty. That is the position. They are not compelled, because we feel that it is necessary for them to rest. They request to go on duty. I want to say that when we abolished overtime a few years ago, many complaints were received because we had done so. It was simply too much to have to listen to! I said the following to my voters: “I do not know what to do now. When you do have overtime you complain that you are working yourselves to death, and when you do not have overtime you complain that you cannot subsist. Then you want it again!” This is also the Opposition’s position.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

It is the position with the Railways!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, I feel that notwithstanding the staff shortage, which we all admit exists, we have done everything in our power to provide for the needs of the staff and to equip them as well as we possibly could. Before I conclude, I should very much like to say this: Even the Cape Times is very satisfied. In their leader the last sentence reads as follows: “… but the Railways are in good hands”. And if they say that, it is saying a great deal.

*An HON. MEMBER:

Not in the hands of the Opposition! [Interjections.]

*The DEPUTY-SPEAKER:

Order!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER:

Mr. Speaker, before I resume my seat I should like to refer to the announcement by the hon. the Minister of Transport about the split tariffs which are now to be abolished in South West Africa. Split tariffs are as old as the Railways in South West Africa and have been a grievance to everyone, under the previous Government as well as under this Government. I am very glad that the Minister and the Government have now seen their way clear to abolish that split tariff. For South West Africa—I think I know—it will mean a great deal. You know that it is a far-off country and that the freight charge is sometimes as much as what the article costs here. The freight charges on a bag of cement of 100 lbs., was 61.75 cents. It is being decreased by 36 per cent. The tariff on mealie meal is being decreased by 31 per cent; on salt by 31 per cent; on corn meal by 29 per cent; on fencing material by 30 per cent, and so I can mention a whole list, with which I do not wish to bore the House. But I can tell you that I understand that it is to amount to about R4 million per annum, by which South West Africa is going to benefit. I only have this concern, however, and that is that the consumer in South West Africa may perhaps not benefit from this; that the dealer will pocket it. Therefore I should like us to make arrangements with the administration of South West Africa to take the necessary steps timeously in order to ensure that these benefits will go into the pockets of the consumers.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has just sat down, has rather condemned his own criticism of this side of the House by his own speech. He has acknowledged and, quite rightly, that there is a manpower shortage in the South African Railways and Harbours Administration. If there is a shortage, then it must result in either the Department not undertaking the work that it should do, because it does not have enough people on the staff, or alternatively work that should be done by the staff which they do not have, must be done by the present staff. If it is being done by the present staff, then that staff is being asked to do more than the Railways themselves have considered sufficient for that man’s chore. Because, if he could do it, if it did not mean more work, a greater load, why create the other posts? Then there would be no shortage of manpower.

The Deputy Minister also dealt with the superannuation funds, pension funds, sick funds, etc. Sir, those are nothing unusual in the modern business world. There would be something very wrong if they did not exist in the Administration. They exist in any well-organized industry or any well-organized undertaking in the private sector. Surely, they should exist in the public sector, as they do. But the hon. the Minister has failed to deal with one matter that I wish to deal with and which, unfortunately, again is rather passed over in this Budget. That is that the security of an employee or the inducement for an employee to work for a certain undertaking is correctly influenced by the existence of superannuation funds, pension funds and sick funds. But, Sir, there is another matter which concerns all employees, especially those who have entered State service. What is their position to be when they no longer can work? What is their position to be when they no longer can earn an income and they are on the pensioned list? We find this position cropping up again of a concession which is now being given in so far as civil allowances to pensioners are concerned. But let us examine what this concession is. There is the elimination of the means test in so far as these civil allowances are concerned. When last year in the Budget debate I raised this matter the hon. the Minister said it was quite impossible to consider doing away with the means test. He explained that this means test was applied so as to induce back into the Railways as many as possible of the old employees, and that they can go back into the Railways without losing the benefits of these civil allowances. But then the hon. the Minister went on, and I quote from Hansard (col. 2933, 14th March, 1967):

The hon. member also asked that the means test be raised. That cannot be done either, because it would cost a few million rand, that is if that test were abolished, which would in any event be an unsound principle.

That was what the hon. the Minister told us last year. I have no quarrel with him. We have convinced him that in principle it is not so unsound, but what do we find in regard to the budgeting and estimating? Last year the hon. the Minister told us that this would cost millions of rand but now he tells us that the means test at present applied in determining the temporary allowances payable to them would be abolished. The estimated cost of this concession is R800,000. I raise this point because I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House feel entitled to say that he has treated the Railway pensioners in an unreasonable manner in the last 12 months. With its surpluses the Railways could have carried this R800,000. These people would then have been assisted out of the difficulties under which the hon. the Minister knows and we know they have been labouring. But I want to go further. Whom is the hon. the Minister helping? What concessions are the Railway pensioners receiving? According to the figures given to us last year there were 1,206 Railway pensioners who had been reemployed in the Railways. They were all right because they had no deduction from their civil allowance. The total deductions made in regard to people employed outside the Railways amount to R800,000. These people are now rightly put in the position that they can now re-enter employment in the open market and they are free to supplement their incomes. But what about the class of pensioner, and there are hundreds if not thousands of them, who because of advancing age or ill-health cannot work and who have served the Railways? We know of them and I have quoted examples of them before. I think for instance of those men who served on the tugs and other branches of the Railways who because of ill-health or other physical handicaps cannot now re-enter employment? What aid do they receive from this Budget? Where is any provision made for assistance to them? Where is there any hope for them in the autumn of their lives as far as this Budget is concerned? There is nothing for them. These people are concerned because the Minister, through the very fact that he has decided to grant the salary increases to the staff of the Railways, realizes that the present rate of remuneration is not sufficient to meet the present cost of living. I again wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot look to these loyal pensioned servants and find a formula whereby their pensions can in some way be equated to the cost of living so as to give them proportionately some increase as far as their allowances are concerned. I refer to those pensioners who are unable to work and supplement their pensions. There are many of them.

I come now to another matter which was touched on by the hon. member for Salt River, namely the question of rates. In this regard I want to refer to the report of the Schumann Commission and certain of its recommendations which have not yet been adopted. I make no apology for raising this matter again with the hon. the Minister. There has been a change in the position as far as the Western Cape is concerned. Certain policies have been imposed upon the Western Cape by the hon. the Minister’s colleagues which are placing the industries in the Cape in some difficulty in competing with the rest of the country. They are competing in a difficult labour market because they are deprived of Bantu labour. Industrialists are not as fortunate as the hon. the Minister who is able to obtain Bantu labour in the Cape Peninsula for work in the docks and elsewhere. The hon. the Minister is able to do this because he obviously has more authority. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not give further consideration to the recommendation of the Schumann Commission which he has said before he was not prepared to carry out, namely that present port rates between Port Elizabeth, East London and the Transvaal should be abolished. In other words, the Cape Peninsula and the Western Cape should be put into a more equitable position in regard to the transport of manufactured goods. I mention this because circumstances have changed in the Western Cape. This area is regarded by the Government as a White Coloured area without Bantu labour. It is expected and intended that Bantu labour here should be reduced. That inevitably brings to us in the Western Cape additional costs in the running of industries. I think that this concession which was recommended by the Schumann Commission is overdue.

I come now to another matter which I raised with the hon. the Minister as a question of policy because I have not been able to follow the logic of an answer I got to a question which I put to the hon. the Minister. I am referring to the control of the access to harbours. What exactly is the policy of the Government in this regard? What exactly is their policy in regard to the right of the public to enter harbours in order to view the harbours, ships or whatever may be going on there? The people of the Cape and visitors to the Cape are greatly inconvenienced and upset by the fact, according to the answer given to me by the hon. the Minister on the 12th March, 1968, that in the interests of efficient port working and for safety and security reasons, the Table Bay Harbour must be closed over week-ends and on public holidays. On what authority is such a decision taken? Does he have the power to say in a generalized way that the harbours must be closed and that the taxpayer and everybody else who contributes to the cost of the running of the harbours can have no access merely because the hon. the Minister or somebody else feels that the Cape Town Harbour is so lacking in security measures that it would be dangerous to allow visitors into the docks. The hon. the Minister of Tourism has said that tourism should be encouraged so that people can spend money here. When they come to Cape Town they cannot enter the docks.

The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT:

Do overseas tourists come to South Africa to view Table Bay Harbour?

Mr. L. G. MURRAY:

No, I am not talking about overseas tourists. I am talking about the general tourist trade in this country. We do not cater only for overseas tourists. The hon. the Minister may regard this matter as unimportant, but I want to ask him or one of his officials to spend a morning, even now that most people know that the docks are closed, over a week-end at the gates and see how many people want to enter the docks because they are interested in the sea and our seafaring activities. They are stopped by the policemen on duty and cannot enter the docks. Some of them are a little shrewd and say that they are going to the Yacht Club and so get in very easily but it is an irritation to people who do not think of saying that they want to go to the Yacht Club. I do think that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to this matter, especially when it comes to a city such as Cape Town, to terminate this state of affairs as far as entry to the docks is concerned.

Finally I should like to talk about the question of the construction of railway lines which are not in themselves self-supporting. The hon. the Minister has dealt with this question in his statement of policy. I gather that the Minister’s attitude is that it is accepted as a matter of principle that the railway lines to be built by the Department will only be built if it can be guaranteed that they will not be run at a loss. I believe the other aspect is that railway lines can be built to implement Government policy. Generalizing again on the situation in this country, there are innumerable places, and there are plenty of them in the Cape Province, where there is not sufficient public transport to deal with the Government’s policy of separation which it is trying to impose. I want to give an example of this in the Cape Peninsula, and that is the crying need for transport facilities to take our non-White people to the seaside which has been set aside for them, not by their own choosing but by the authorities. It has been suggested that municipalities should bear the cost and subsidize it. These resorts are not only for our particular municipal area, or for the non-Whites of any particular municipal area. The resort at Strandfontein is utilized by non-Whites from the whole of the Western Cape. It would be utilized by more of them, if they had the means of transport to it. The policy which the hon. the Minister has stated in the past and which is adopted in regard to railway lines to mining industries and other places like Hotazel where they have guarantees, cannot apply when a line like this one for which there is a crying need, and needs to be provided in the implementation of Government policy. I hope that the hon. the Minister will find that this matter can be dealt with, and that there can be a clear differentiation in his policy in regard to these two aspects relating to lines which might be otherwise regarded as unpayable.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Mr. Speaker, when one studies the Estimates the hon. the Minister has tabled, the White Paper that goes with it as well as the General Manager’s Report, one arrives at the pleasant conclusion that the South African Railways, Harbours and Airways, taken as a whole, is at present indisputably one of the best administered and best managed undertakings in our country. What is more, for an undertaking of its magnitude, I do not think that it has an equal in the world. It is a feather in the cap of a Minister who has already for more than 13 years been developing the national transport service systematically so that it has become to-day something of which our country can justly be proud. It is the pride of a dedicated General Management composed of men representing the best brains of our nation. It is the joint achievement of thousands of Railway servants, white and non-White, who have often under very difficult circumstances rendered their unselfish services to the Railways. This is also why the South African Railways have achieved at present such a high degree of efficiency that it compares very favourably with the best railways in the world.

In an article written by Professor C. Verburgh in the South African Financial Gazette dated 1st March, I read that the volume of South African railway traffic was growing steadily at a rate which cannot be equalled by some of the greatest, most highly developed countries of the world. Professor Verburgh pointed out that during the past decade goods traffic on the South African Railways has never experienced any setbacks. On the contrary, from 1956-’67 to 1966-’67, there was an increase of almost 50 per cent, whereas in the 18 most important countries of Western Europe, goods traffic increased by only 12 per cent during the same period and has, in actual fact, been on the decline since 1964. As regards the number of passengers transported by the Railways, there has been an increase of 77 per cent over the past ten years, whereas the railway systems in Western Europe have merely been able to retain the number of passengers they had.

If we look at the South African Railways, we see that the comparison is much more spectacular still. During the financial year 1966-’67, the number of passengers conveyed by the Springbok and Wallaby services increased by 37 per cent and 41 per cent respectively, whereas inter-European passenger traffic increased by only 12 per cent and general world passenger traffic by only 14 per cent.

Several kinds of criticism on these Estimates were raised here to-day. The first of these with which I want to deal, is that the hon. the Minister’s Estimates are not keeping pace with reality. Allegedly the Minister is continually under-estimating his revenue and over-estimating his expenditure. The reply to this argument is contained in the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech. According to the relevant part of the Budget speech, you will see that the Minister and his Department are in very good company. They are in the company of a body such as the University of Stellenbosch Bureau of Economic Research, an organization adapted to making advance estimates year in and year out. The advance estimates made by the Bureau last year tallied exactly with those of the Railways. How can our members come forward and say that the hon. the Minister’s Estimates take no account of reality? Another argument advanced here, was that the hon. the Minister had waited too long before he granted increases to the staff, and that the harm had already been done. According to hon. members on the opposite side of the House, thousands of people have over the past few years left the Railways because they did not earn enough. But before I deal with that, I just want to point out that those hon. members are giving out that it is only the South African Railways which is experiencing a staff shortage in South Africa. They forget that shortages are being experienced in every State Department to-day. Why are the Railways being singled out? Recently we had figures in respect of the Post Office which were just as bad. This is also found in several of the private sectors. It is a general country-wide phenomenon. But in listening to hon. members, one would fully believe that these staff shortages are confined to the Railways, and that the shortages may be attributed to the fact that these people have been horribly underpaid all these years. This salary increase is not intended to prevent people from resigning from the Railways. It is a salary increase which is granted on merit. R43 million cannot solve for the Railways this problem of resignations and loss of staff. Another R43 million cannot prevent this either. But let us go into that matter. Why do the Railways have a shortage in certain grades at the moment? For instance, there is a shortage of engineers. The private sector is simply buying the services of the men that are being trained by the Railways. The Railways cannot compete with the private sector. It is easy for a private body employing one or two engineers to buy the services of a person at the price he asks. It is easy for them to offer a person R1,000 per annum more so that he may resign from the Railways, as well as to pay over to him the amount he requires to buy himself out of the Railways. It is merely R1,000. But the Railways cannot follow suit by granting all of a sudden a R1,000 increase to their hundreds upon hundreds of engineers in order to keep them with the Railways. That is not the point. We shall not solve this problem by granting the engineers a 10, 12 or 15 per cent increase. These people will still be leaving the Service, since their services are being bought by the private sector. Neither the Railways nor one single State Department can compete with the private sector in this regard. Take the question of shunters. Do hon. members on the opposite side of the House think that one would obtain enough shunters if their salaries were increased by a further 10, 15 or 20 per cent? That is not why these people are leaving the Railways. Amongst other things, they resign from the Railways because they are doing very dangerous work; because they have to work very difficult shifts; and because, as was said here, they do not have much of a home life and great demands are made upon them. The solution is not to be found in paying them a little more money. Generally speaking these people, with their Sunday time and overtime, draw very big salaries. I think that this whole story is being blown up out of all proportion.

*The MINISTER OF FORESTRY OF TOURISM AND OF SPORT AND RECREATION:

In the olden days they talked about general unemployment prevailing in the country.

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

Yes, that is true. Now we come to another aspect, namely the increase in tariffs. Hon. members advanced the argument here that nothing was being done to grant just relief in tariffs to the users of the Railways. Hon. members are saying that what the Minister actually did, was to take an inflationary step, in that he simply took R43 million and gave it to the Railway workers. They are suggesting that this amount of R43 million is simply taken on one day and brought into circulation in the general economy. They do not view the matter in its correct perspective. They do not explain to the country that this amount of R43 million will systematically and month by month, at approximately R3½ million per month, be distributed all over South Africa. The whole matter is being blown up. Then they come forward and say that if the Minister wanted to counteract inflation, he should have effected a reduction in tariffs— even if it is as the private sector, organized commerce and the industries are saying outside: a selective tariff reduction. What has our experience been? However, first of all I want to ask hon. members where the Minister was supposed to have obtained the money? The hon. the Minister is in fact budgeting for a loss of R24 million. If a year or two ago the hon. the Minister had followed the advice of the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members opposite by not increasing the tariffs, the Rates Equalization Fund would not have stood at R75 million to-day and would not have been able to meet any deficit which may occur at the end of the year. Where would the hon. the Minister have obtained the money to reduce the tariffs? If we had followed the advice given by hon. members on the opposite side of the House in 1966, there would have been a meagre R14 million in the Rates Equalization Fund at the end of last year. If the hon. the Minister had not increased the tariffs last year, there would have been a deficit in the Rates Equalization Fund at the moment. Then we would not have been in a position to offer salary increases to Railway servants. Then the Minister would in these days of downward economic trend have had to increase tariffs in these Estimates. Not in order to grant increases to the Railways staff, not in order to make the Rates Equalization Fund solvent, but simply and solely to make his Estimates balance. That would have happened if we had followed the advice given by hon. members opposite. But now hon. members say that we must give something to the Railway servants and reduce the tariffs as well. If that would reduce the cost of living, I, too, would have given consideration to supporting hon. members. But. after all, we have had experience of that. A few years ago this hon. Minister reduced tariffs to an amount of more than R5 million. He reduced them particularly in respect of foodstuffs. At the time the hon. the Minister made a plea to commerce and industry to use this opportunity to bring down the cost of living by reducing the cost of the article in accordance with the relief offered. Did they do so? Not a single one of them responded to the appeal made by the hon. the Minister. That R5 million which they received, the capitalists and the industrialists put into their pockets just like that. Now hon. members are asking that we should once again do the same sort of rash thing. The hon. member for Salt River once again came forward here with an old United Party story which had already been told here by the former member for Simonstown, Mr. Gay—the story that the Railways, Harbours and Airways should be divorced from one another. The hon. member for Durban (Point) also took a hand in that. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that one had to rid the Airways of the “Railway mentality” of the Railways. These services are simply indissolubly connected with one another.

*Mr. W. V. RAW:

Why then is there a Marais Commission?

*Mr. S. F. KOTZÉ:

We have not yet received the report of the Commission. In the meantime I am expressing my opinion. I am merely drawing attention to the foolish opinion the hon. member quite presumptuously expressed. The fact of the matter is that South Africa has benefitted tremendously as a result of these three services having fallen under one management in the past. We cannot compare ourselves with the rest of the world. South Africa’s circumstances are very different from those in the rest of the world. I want to make the frank admission here that the Railways have benefitted by the profits yielded by the Airways and Harbours. But, on the other hand, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Harbours and particularly the Airways are the flourishing and profitable services they are to-day, in view of the fact that because of their connection with the Railways they are enjoying the same measure of protection the Railways do. Remove that protection and see whether these services will still be able to continue on such a flourishing basis. The Airways has grown out of the South African Railways into the flourishing concern it is to-day. That was possible because it enjoyed the protection when it was in need of it and received it owing to its connection with the South African Railways. That is why one should repudiate with contempt the fact that this idea, i.e. that these services should be divorced from one another, can be expressed by the hon. member for Salt River at this stage. I really think that no other points of criticism were raised. On looking through my notes, I cannot find any others. There is another matter I want to touch upon in the rest of my speech. I think the Opposition is no longer capable of rousing our fighting spirit in this debate. I am longing for the debates of seven, eight, nine, ten years ago. Then the U.P. supporters still gave us something we could fight against. But they have laid down arms. I want to sympathize with them. I want to admit frankly that it has become a “darn” difficult task, for instance, to make any capital out of these Estimates. I do not want to be in the hon. member for Yeoville’s position. But he is also making the position difficult for us on this side of the House. What must we talk about if we do not get anything out of them? Just as it is with us, so it is with the hon. the Minister. Hon. members are no longer putting forward any constructive ideas and criticism to stimulate and influence the Minister to do certain things. That is why I want to avail myself of this opportunity to-day, and the hon. the Minister must kindly bear with me in conjecturing about the future. I should like to ask a question here to-day. I want to ask where the combined national transport services can still play an important part in the development of South Africa. I think that members on both sides of the House will agree that South Africa’s future is more and more to be found in developing our industries to a greater extent and in increased exports. In that sphere we are engaged in fierce competition with the old established countries of the world.

I was pleased to read in an article recently that the increase in the exports of the Republic for 1967, was the second highest in the whole world. Only the exports of Japan were comparatively greater in volume than South Africa’s 12.7 per cent. But the fact remains that we still had a balance of trade deficit of R562 million. The biggest increase in exports was to be found under the item “manufactured goods”. Here the increase was 20.2 per cent. We are therefore making progress in respect of our exports as far as manufactured goods are concerned. I note that there is an indication of major expansion possibilities in respect of the export of our ores and minerals. The statistics, if one analyses them as furnished in the White Paper that was tabled, show that the various kinds of ores and minerals conveyed by rail over the past four years have increased from 11.9 million tons to 18.7 million tons, i.e. by 6.7 million tons. This is a substantial increase, and during this period the revenue from the conveyance of these ores and minerals has increased from R16.2 million to R30.6 million, almost by 100 per cent. I have read in an issue of Tegniek dated January, 1968, that Iscor is at present considering the possibility of exporting within the next 30 years roughly 500 million tons of iron-ore from Sishen, and that the present estimate of the iron-ore reserves in the Sishen-Postmasburg area is roughly 4,300 million tons. At the moment the iron-ore is being conveyed to Port Elizabeth, to be exported, over a railway line of 650 miles, and that is a great distance. The cost of conveyance must necessarily influence the overseas marketing in a competitive world, and particularly in competition with Australia. We must therefore consider the matter and see whether a shorter route cannot be found along which we may convey the iron-ore to the coast. Various alternatives have been mentioned. There is already speculation about the idea of building a pipe-line from where the iron-ore is mined to a west coast port, but that would be an expensive process, and apart from that, such a scheme would involve many problems. The first problem is that the only possible port along the west coast, and the nearest port at the moment, to which the pipe-line can be built, is Saldanha, and to my mind that is altogether too far away from the ore deposits. The other problem in connection with the pipe-line is that one needs water for washing the ore, and the Northern Cape cannot spare a single drop of its own water for that purpose. One would therefore have to pump sea-water to the ore deposits in order to wash the ore down to the sea again. That is why I want to make a very strong plea today for an alternative, i.e. for the construction of a railway line from Postmasburg via Upington to Boegoeberg Harbour on the west coast. Such a line would hold many advantages for South Africa.

In the first place, it will shorten the distance the ore is conveyed by at least 220 miles. Whereas a pipe-line cannot give rise to any secondary development, this railway line will ensure tremendous development to an extensive under-developed part of our country. According to an economic survey carried out by the University of Stellenbosch Bureau of Economic Research, this railway line will be an indispensable prerequisite for the proper utilization of the development potential of the Lower Orange River area. But such a railway line will also give rise to the possibility of a link between Bitterfontein and the Boegoeberg-Upington section of the line, which would considerably shorten the link between Cape Town and the North West and South West Africa. This is a long-felt need. Apart from that the railway line will generally be a very great asset to the Railways because it will shorten the route between South West and Kimberley, which goes over De Aar at present, by 100 miles, and this will considerably facilitate the marketing of the produce of South West on the Rand markets. It will also make the enlarged airport at Upington more productive, particularly in respect of the feeding of airfreight, which is a flourishing new development in the S.A. Airways. That is why the consideration of the construction of a railway link should, to my mind, have preference to the construction of a pipe-line for conveying the ores from Sishen and Postmasburg to the west coast. I want to submit that this railway line is just as much in the national interest as is the proposed line from Vryheid to Empangeni which is envisaged to serve the proposed new super-tanker harbour at Richard’s Bay and to stimulate the development in the Tugela Basin and the border industries in Northern Zululand. I am aware of the policy of the Railways Administration in respect of the construction of new railway lines. I am aware that the Administration does not undertake such lines if they are not justified economically or unless somebody guarantees the losses on such a line, In respect of the approach that such lines must be economic, I want to plead for a measure of leniency and a measure of flexibility in this policy, particularly where there is indisputably every indication that the line will in fact be a paying concern later, in view of the fact that the potential is there and that it will also alleviate so many other problems of the railway service itself. I want to plead that during the initial years they should not pay such close attention to the loss that may perhaps be suffered on such a line, but that they should look ahead at the tremendous development of a part of our country which has been neglected for a long time. If the Railways Administration says that it is not its function to take this task upon itself, as it may rightly do, I want to plead that the State should guarantee this line. The Government can no longer ignore the rightful demand on the part of that large area, which is inhabited mainly by Whites. This undertaking is a grand project which should in the national interest be undertaken with faith and imagination, just as the mighty Orange River Scheme was undertaken. The principle of guaranteeing such a line has already been adopted by the Government. It is already being done in respect of certain suburban lines to Bantu areas in respect of which the Government pays approximately R20 million per annum to meet the loss suffered on the conveyance of suburban Bantu passengers. Furthermore, if serious consideration is given to the construction of a pipe-line to convey the ores, I shall certainly argue that the money utilized for that purpose should rather be used for guaranteeing this line. Such a link will open very many doors and it will create tremendous new points of growth in a large part of our country. It will go even further than that. This railway line will make Boegoeberg Harbour of national importance. The Railways Administration will have to participate in the construction of the harbour to make it accessible and suitable for ore ships, and within the foreseeable future provision will have to be made at the Port Elizabeth harbour for more harbour facilities for ore ships weighing more than 100,000 tons. In my opinion this may just as well be done at Boegoeberg Harbour. The world trend is simply to build super-ships for the conveyance of oil, ores and bulk products. We cannot arrest that trend. The Cape route is a long one and the greater the tonnage of the hold, the more profitable the transportation, and we must take that into account. This will also relieve the pressure in our other harbours. The expansion of our harbours is one of the most nagging tasks the Administration has to-day. In many respects existing harbour facilities are already being utilized to the full. Our economic and industrial growth is becoming more and more dependent on imports and exports, and it is making greater and greater demands on the available harbour capacity. In addition to that the pressure on our ports is being increased as a result of international circumstances—the closure of the Suez Canal, the fact that this Canal will at any rate be shrouded in uncertainty in the future, and the fact that it will at any rate be impossible for large super-tankers to make use of the Canal. In the military sphere, for our fleet, we also have a need for a harbour situated between Walvis Bay and Saldanha, and that is why we want to plead very strongly today for this railway line which will involve the expansion, in the national interest, of Boegoeberg Harbour on the west coast.

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

For once I am able to agree, to a certain extent, with the hon. member for Parow, who has just sat down, and who put forward a plea for a railway line to the West coast. I want to develop that a little bit later in the course of my remarks because there is no doubt that there is a need for some examination to be made of the requirements of the Northern and North-Western Cape in regard to rail facilities. Sir, the theme which I wish to develop is the position of the Coloured community in relation to the Railways, the Airways and the Harbours, bearing in mind that the Government’s attitude is that for the Coloured community the sky is the limit. First of all, I would like to say that I think this hon. Minister is one of the Ministers who is really on the ball. I think he does know his portfolio and he is never at a loss to give an answer to any question put to him. Having made that acknowledgment I do not wish to detract from it by saying something unkind, but what I would like to say is that I do not think the Minister is budgeting any more. These are not budgets which are put before the House; they are a series of figures which the hon. the Minister knows full well are nowhere near the actual figures that will ultimately result from a year’s operation. Sir, in private business, in big business, how would shareholders respond if a manager forecast a deficit of R400,000 and produced a surplus of R35 million? I think a lot of searching questions would be asked and somebody would be fired. To my knowledge the Railway Administration has a more or less weekly accounting system, and it must have been obvious to the hon. the Minister earlier in the year that he was heading for a surplus. He says himself in his speech that in the first few months of the year there were inordinate increases in revenue. What I can not understand is how the hon. the Minister, with the experience that he has had in the Railways Administration, could get himself involved in two declared industrial disputes before he took any action. Did he do this to be a good fellow or was it done for political reasons? I do not propose to probe into that, but what I would say is that I think it is extremely unfortunate that the Airways technicians were compelled to have a dispute declared. The Minister himself has said that he has had difficulty with artisans. Why does he get himself into this position and then come along at the end of the period and, with a magic wand, say that he is going to give away something in excess of R40 million in additional salaries? I cannot understand the thinking of the Minister in this direction and why these people were allowed to get into this unhappy state, so much so that they had to resort to the ultimate in their relationship with their employers by having disputes declared before the Minister took any action.

Everybody is patting the Minister on the back. I want to ask him whether the railwaymen, even with the present increases which they are going to get, are adequately paid? I wonder if the General Manager of an undertaking of such magnitude that it can produce a profit of R35 million is adequately paid at R11,500 a year. If he was in private practice in an industry with which I am familiar and turned in profits of that magnitude, he would be a millionaire if he got only 5 per cent of the profits. I believe that half the trouble in the Railway service is that the men in the top brackets are poorly paid as well as the men in the bottom brackets.

An HON. MEMBER:

The hon. member for Yeoville complained that the middle group were poorly paid.

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

My reason for saying this is that unless the whole pay structure rises, the people for whom I plead can get nothing and that is the Coloured community, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Coloured man in the Railway service is going to get his wages doubled, or is he going to get the same 13 per cent which is being given to those in the top brackets earning R8,000 to R10,000 a year? I think you will find, Sir, that the whole Railway structure needs overhauling. I do not think it is so much a question of shortage of staff. I think there is far too much top hamper of expensive people whereas higher wages should be paid to those in the lower orders. Sir, that is the suggestion I offer to the hon. the Minister. I think he has far too many employees at the top earning big money but not big enough for fewer men. That would be the stream-lining effect if this undertaking was run on real business lines; you would have fewer men in the top brackets; they would be far better paid and those who are right at the bottom, namely the Coloured men, who have so few openings made for them, would come into the vacuum and receive a better deal. Some two years ago I asked the hon. the Minister to consider a pension fund for Coloured persons in the Railway service. He told me that it would cost too much. I want to ask him whether he would not reconsider the attitude which he then adopted and institute a pension fund for these people, because I find that the amount of money involved would not nearly be as much as the hon. the Minister thought. We have had some figures here to-day in other directions which have indicated that his estimating was bad, and therefore I ask him whether he will not please investigate the possibility of instituting a pension fund for the Coloureds in particular who are employed in the Railway service.

Sir, I have had occasion to correspond with the hon. the Minister on various matters affecting the Coloured people and the gist of the replies I get is that Coloured persons are employed in a temporary capacity in the particular jobs which I queried. How long does a man stay “temporary” in a permanent post, and when, if ever, does he qualify as a member of a pension fund so that like his white colleagues he can say, “At some time in the future, at such and such an age, this is what I will get?” I believe that the hon. the Minister has taken the bull by the horns, really in conflict with the policy of his colleagues, by employing more non-Whites or Coloured persons on the Railways because he knows that these people do a good job, that they are available and that that is the only type of employee that he can get. So, he employs them. According to his figures, there was a reduction in white personnel by 951 and an increase of Coloured personnel by 1,000. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether or not the time has come to face up to the realities of the situation. Where vacancies are filled by Coloured persons on the Railways, they will not be filled again by Whites, because they are all in the low-brackets. The Minister will remember that I had correspondence with him in regard to berthing attendants in the docks. The extraordinary position arises that in Table Bay, berthing attendants are white men. These are the chaps who throw the wire and cables from the wharf up to the ship and see that the ship is safely moored. At other ports—East London is one and there are also others along the West Coast —this work is done by Bantu. Surely, in view of the fact that there is this tremendous shortage of white personnel on the Railways and people leaving the Railways and Harbours, the time has come when that type of job should be filled by Coloured persons or by Bantu, if you wish. I do not think that it is fair to leave that particular job exclusively for Whites because I think the white man has every possible opportunity of being trained and of being able to fill posts of some other person higher up the scale in the service.

We then come to the situation which I also raised with the hon. the Minister, where the tugs operating in Table Bay docks are fired by white men, heaving picks and shovels. That is because stokers on the Railways must be white. I put it to the hon. the Minister quite fairly and squarely, and I appeal to him and his party also to realize, that this is a job which can quite easily be done by a Coloured person or by a Bantu, and done well. Then these white men are released for more important work. Because surely, the basis of employment in the Railways, or in the Department of Transport, must be that if a white man leaves a job like that of a coal heaver, he is going to get a better job and better pay in other sections of the service.

I have here a reply which I received from the hon. the Minister. He will not mind me just discussing this with him. My final point was to inquire how he envisages—and this is the point which I want to ask him to-day— separate development on the Railways, in the air and on the sea. Coloured people ask me regularly what is the correct procedure for them to follow to ensure that their young people can obtain jobs and get on. The hon. the Minister replied quite nicely and very friendly. I appreciate that. He said: “In addition, provision is made for non-White clerical posts (that is a very minor grade), in booking offices in the larger centres, where the non-Whites may serve only non-White passengers. Other branches of the service provide for policemen, barmen, chefs, cooks, female laundry attendants, cashiers, etc.” But none of those jobs, Mr. Speaker, really earns a first-class salary. All the top jobs, and the higher grades, with higher scales of pay on the Railways are filled exclusively by white people. I believe the hon. the Minister should tackle this. I saw a report in the paper about the dilution of employment on the Railways. The hon. the Minister said it was not true. I accept that, but I think that possibly this might have been anticipating what should be happening. Only the other day I attended the opening of the new courts at Athlone by the Minister of Justice. He said, with tremendous applause and acclaim from everybody present —it was a mixed gathering—that these courts were going to be staffed ultimately and eventually by Coloured personnel and by a Coloured magistrate. That is fair enough. I ask the question: How are you going to train them? The answer will be the Whites and the Coloureds will work together until such time as the Coloured man can take over. That is wonderful. I want to know however why they have to work together if eventually they are going to be separated? The Coloured Affairs Department employ Coloured people and they are doing a good job of work. Therefore I say to the Minister that his problem concerning insufficient staff should be approached scientifically. I know there is prejudice and bias amongst the staff. As I say, the dilution of labour on the Railways should be approached scientifically and intelligently by people who know and understand the problem that they are trying to solve. These tactics of sort-of sneaking these people into certain posts should come to an end. It should be the Minister’s policy to allow a certain number of Coloured people to enter the service and they should be taught to work alongside and with Whites, even if only to be separated later. How are these people to learn what to do unless somebody sits down alongside and shows them what is required? They cannot obtain the knowledge necessary to do their duties by reading books or by looking through the grille at a booking office window. They must get behind the counters to see what is going on. Therefore I say to the Minister the time has come for the evasion—and I use the term kindly—of admitting that Coloured people are necessary for the smooth running of the Railways, should be discontinued. Their acceptance should be accepted as a matter of policy and be pursued actively.

He referred in his speech to the scholarships and bursaries granted to railwaymen. I should like the Minister in his reply to indicate how many Coloured persons enjoy those scholarships and bursaries. I am convinced that if Coloured men could enjoy bursaries and scholarships from the Railways to qualify, for instance, in engineering they would not leave the service but would be so thankful and grateful that they would stay. Moreover, the Minister would have good and loyal servants, people who would be interested in their work and carry out their duties efficiently.

The alternative to what I suggest is, of course, the old idea of “algehele apartheid”, a policy which went by the board years ago because it was impracticable and absolutely nonsensical. But, assuming the hon. the Minister does not agree with what I say, I want to ask him a straightforward question. If the Coloured community of two million people decided the hon. the Minister was not running the Railways as he should, would they be permitted to build their own railway alongside his on the basis of “separate development” and “the sky is the limit”? If this question is posed, then the whole policy as pursued by the Minister is seen to be absolutely ridiculous. This is the sort of stuff on which the public is fed. The fact is that the Railways is a national project, an undertaking which concerns the entire country, and it should employ as many people as qualify for the vacancies, irrespective of the colour of their skins. If that is not done, and it is not accepted as being a proposition, then the Minister must realize that as far as the Railways are concerned, separate development is a myth and a farce.

The MINISTER OF PLANNING:

What gauge have you got in mind?

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

A bit broader than yours because it is a broad-minded one. I should like to direct the Minister’s thoughts in that direction.

Let us look at another facet of the Railways, namely the catering service. I use the Railways quite a lot as I travel about in my constituency which, as hon. members know, is enormous. I also make use of the R.M.T. and I also fly a little. Often when sitting in the train’s dining car I see the chief steward struggling with three inexperiencd youths to serve meals and refreshments to the passengers. Surely the time has come when we as adults in an adult country should appreciate that Coloured and Indian men would make first-class waiters and stewards to cater for the needs of the white passengers in railway dining units. Often I am asked why, if a non-White can make a passenger’s bed, he cannot in the name of Heaven serve him with a bowl of soup? This is something I just do not understand. I have made inquiries to see if I could find some unknown deep underlying reason for the non-employment of these people as stewards and waiters, but I could find none. I am convinced that in that section of the S.A.R. the hon. the Minister could show his goodwill towards the Coloured community by making provision for their being employed there.

One is similarly curious when one flies in an aeroplane. When one sits in a Boeing, whether it be the jumbo jet which we will get, or the smaller version, or even when flying in an old Dakota, one finds highly educated and intelligent people handing out sandwiches and tea. Yet we talk about a manpower shortage in this country! Surely these men and women could be used to better advantage, bearing in mind their educational standards, their training, their background, and their traditions. In this sphere I feel the Government, and particularly this hon. Minister, can also show goodwill towards and good faith in the Coloured community or our country.

I had occasion recently to look at a few matters affecting white workers on the S.A.R. When I talk about stokers in the docks, my mind naturally turns to stokers on the railways. I speak subject to correction, but my information is that white men are preferred as stokers in the docks so that they can be used elsewhere on the railways, if necessary, and also that they do not upset the white stoker’s grade. Anybody would think that a stoker’s job is a sort of a sinecure, a job which is much sought after. Recently I saw that a certain system manager was contradicted because of a statement he had made to the effect that firemen were paid double time on Sundays. He also claimed that they only worked seven hours per day. Shortly afterwards a few letters appeared in the Press, all written in a very friendly spirit but purporting to put him right on his facts. One letter was from a fireman who had been on the line for 11 years, whose basic wage before stoppages amounted to R143, and who received a net pay packet of R118 for the upkeep of his household, his wife and children. He did not complain about that, but his grouse was the following. He said that if he works on Sundays he gets paid 7½c per hour extra and he does not work a seven-hour day, as alleged, but a day if 8 hours 40 minutes. He said he seldom got a week-end off, and if he did it was only through a bit of manoeuvring in the running shed. He also said if he was unwilling to go on the line then the loco foreman, I think it is, makes things a bit severe for him. Accordingly they turn out and do their shift. I was in business for nearly 30 years during which time I sold automobiles to many railwaymen. When the agreement form for the purchase of the vehicle was filled in, the railwayman had to divulge his income, and these people never relied wholly on their basic wages to finance the deal. They would say to me, “You need not be worried, I earn £70 to £80 per month more than my basic wage with all the overtime that I do”. This was the case particularly when it came to drivers and firemen. I put it to the hon. the Minister that such a situation is bad for all concerned. It is obvious that if these men have to work that much overtime then there is either too much to do or there is not enough time in which to do it. I therefore say to the Minister if he would increase these basic wages to something reasonable and do away with the overtime, he would get people to do the work and he would not find himself saddled with a situation where he complains of a shortage of personnel on the railways.

These are the things I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and I do plead with him sincerely that, with this tremendous surplus on his hands, he should give serious consideration to giving special treatment to Coloured workers on the S.A.R. He should also seriously consider, or at least investigate, the possibility of a pension fund for Coloured personnel on the railways.

Finally, instead of employing these people somewhat surreptitiously on the basis of their being temporary hands, which more or less suggests the existence of a hope that at some time or other suitable Whites will appear, when these temporary people will be discharged, the Minister should accept these workers as being part and parcel of the Administration. They should be employed as permanent workers, and the matter be “finish and klaar” and done with. I say we must get on with the job of accepting Coloured people on the Railways as part and parcel of the Government’s policy.

Before I sit down, I want to refer to the remarks made by the Minister concerning the anticipated drop in traffic to the new port of Richard’s Bay as a result of the competition encountered from Australia in respect of iron ore to Japan. The hon. member for Parow has appealed for a railway line to Boegoeberg. However, the hon. member waves away with an easy wave of the hand the possibility of a pipeline from Postmasburg or some suitable point such as Sishen, to a point north of the Orange River. I do not propose to develop this theme now except to say this. I spent some time during the recess reading the speeches by Dr. Van Eck and I would say to the Minister that before the traffic reaches such volume that he cannot cope, it would be as well to investigate the possibility of a pipeline from the iron ore fields at Sishen to the coast in which the ore could be pumped in the form of a slurry. The hon. member for Parow just waved this aside and said it could not be done. That part of the country …

Mr. J. J. LOOTS:

Don’t you want the factory nearer in the Northern Cape?

Mr. G. S. EDEN:

I do not mind where the factory is situated, as long as the products are handled properly. Does the hon. member mean the iron factory? If the hon. member is talking about a steel works then I wish to say I am going to talk about that when another Vote is under discussion. I hope the hon. member will be in the House when I do talk about it. I am now talking only of the transportation of the ore to the coast. At the moment the S.A.R. is carrying trainloads of iron ore and manganese not only to Vanderbijlpark in the Transvaal, which is quite nearby but also to Port Elizabeth and down to Natal. I believe my scheme would be wiser in view of the fact that supplies for the East are going to come from places like Australia. Therefore I say we should now consider the feasibility of making some outlet on the West Coast, but not at Saldanha Bay. I shudder to think what will happen to the gentlemen holding options on the land there, but I think they can take care of themselves. I would like to see the scheme moved northwards, in the direction of South West Africa, because I think our future lies in the West as far as the use of manganese and iron ore is concerned.

I say this to the Minister in the earnest hope that he will, in his reply, indicate whether or not an investigation has been made to ascertain whether my suggestion is a feasible one. Much thought is being given to the development of the ores and other base minerals as well as precious stones and other things, in the area, and I ask the Minister whether he would care to give some indication as to what his thoughts are regarding the possibility of developing the West Coast, which would be of tremendous value to us all, either by way of the construction of a harbour, or the construction of a railway line, or the laying of a pipeline, or a combination of these.

*Mr. J. A. SCHLEBUSCH:

Mr. Speaker, in the first place the hon. member for Karoo voiced his dissatisfaction with the hon. the Minister because the latter’s estimate had not been correct. He said that if the manager of a private company made such an erroneous estimate he would probably be dismissed. Well, I am sure that if that manager could show such a big surplus as the Minister has done, he would not be dismissed, but would rather be promoted. In addition he would receive a bonus and an increase in salary. His second objection was that the salaries for the two groups mentioned by him were inadequate. He explicitly referred to the top and the bottom layers. One of those who spoke before him, I think the hon. member for Salt River, pleaded for the middle group. In other words, the United Party is now pleading for an overall increase in salaries. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the tariff increases to the amount of R55 million as having been unnecessarily taken from the pockets of the public. Now I cannot quite understand how one can blow hot and cold at the same time, because one moment that side is asking for an overall increase in railway salaries and the next they are criticizing the tariff increases, which have in fact made it possible to grant the recent increases in railway salaries. I am afraid I do not follow that United Party logic at all. In the third instance the hon. member pleaded for greater employment of non-White labour in the S.A.R. I shall have something to say about this at a later stage. Seeing that it is almost time for us to go home now, I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6.57 p.m.