Mr. Speaker, the business of the House for next week will be more or less as follows: After this debate has been concluded the House will proceed with legislation in the sequence in which it is printed on today’s Order Paper. After the reply of the hon. the Minister of Finance on Monday, the first few Votes, those of the House of Assembly, the Senate and the State President, will come up for discussion. After that the House will proceed with legislation again. On Tuesday the Vote of the Prime Minister will be discussed.

†After we have disposed of the Vote of the Prime Minister, the House will deal with the Defence Vote, followed by the Bantu Administration Vote.

*The week after the House will proceed with legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the derogatory speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Houghton. I would like straight away to tell her that we on this side of the House, as well as all loyal and patriotic South Africans, despise and abhor the attitude displayed by the hon. member in her speech yesterday. It is about time the hon. member, and other hon. members on that side of the House who think the way she thinks—I am sure not all of them think the same—should realize that we are sick and tired of what she is doing to this country of ours, the country of the White man and of all the other races and peoples of South Africa. When I say that not all hon. members on that side think the same as the hon. member for Houghton, I particularly have in mind the hon. member for Yeoville. I am quite sure he does not agree with her on all matters, especially not on matters relating to loyalty to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, if one looks at what she said in her speech, it almost seems as if she likes what has happened in Soweto. Referring to the hon. the Prime Minister, she said—

And then she goes on to say a few things about the hon. the Minister of Justice. She talks about “over 500 young people”. Does she know how young those people really were? It is in her own interest that she referred to them as young people, because that fits in very well with the world picture of South Africa. The hon. member must realize that we despise utterances of that nature.

If one talks about appalling things in connection with the disturbances in Soweto, I believe it is worth quoting from a book titled The Negro Revolution. This is a book written in the Negro idiom. In connection with the Negro riots in Los Angeles in 1965, it says—

Mr. Speaker, these are facts about the riots in Los Angeles. One thousand people were injured, 34 were killed and 4 000 were arrested in the riots in Los Angeles and I am not even talking about the riots in Detroit, Newark and all the other major cities in America: Washington, New York—one can go on naming them. The hon. member for Houghton should read the history of the rioting in America in the sixties in order to know what it was about. Of specific significance to South Africa is that in order to restore order in Los Angeles the Americans had to send in 15 000 troops equipped with the best possible equipment. I want to know from the hon. member for Houghton if she would approve of 15 000 troops being sent in to restore order in the South African situation. Would the hon. member approve of that?

The hon. member attacked the hon. the Minister because, according to her, we did in fact send in troops. It is a disgrace to look at the situation in South Africa without at the same time looking at the situation in other cities of the world. The hon. member for Houghton should read the history of the Negro revolution in America in the sixties and then come back to the House and admit one thing, i.e. that South Africa is not alone when it comes to problems in this field. In the military service of America there is a certain Dr. King, whose special task is to handle the situation of racial friction in the American Defence Force. What does he say? He says that by the year 1980 50 of the major cities in America will be occupied predominantly by Blacks. His forecast is that by 1980 America will have to deal with disturbances which would be described as a racial war.

So what?

The hon. member says “so what!” She should remember that this will be so under a system where there is no legalized discrimination. Yesterday she attacked our system and called it an “abhorrent system of legalized discrimination”. In America there is no such system. In fact, a week before the riots in Los Angeles started the American Congress adopted certain Voters Rights legislation. There are also other factors in respect of the Los Angeles riots, but I do not want to waste too much time on that. Another thing that I want to mention is that in all the surveys of the riots they undertook in America it was shown that in Los Angeles the position of the Negro was better than in most parts of America.

Have you ever visited America? [Interjections.]

It is not necessary to visit America to know that. One can read what the experts say. The overseas friends of the hon. member for Houghton, people who have never visited South Africa, criticize us in many respects. The hon. member quotes what they have to say about South Africa; so I cannot see the logic of the member’s arguments. I just want to ask the hon. member a very simple question, a question which I am sure she can answer. Are there any elements of discrimination in the policy of the PRP?

No. [Interjections.]

What about your qualified vote?

I shall not waste my time by quoting from the latest PRP pamphlet. The hon. member just has to look at the voting procedure which will be adopted under their federal set-up in order to see what blatant discrimination will be applied by the PRP. It is nothing but blatant discrimination. I have a newspaper report here which deals with the quarrel among members of the PRP over schools. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether they have settled this quarrel completely.

The hon. member for Kimberley North pointed out to her the problems connected with mixed schools. I do not want to comment on this, but I want to remind her that they had a vehement quarrel at a recent congress on the question of school integration. I want to allege that discrimination lives on in their hearts. I shall return to the essence of discrimination, which they are always criticizing us about, in a moment. I just want to say that it is disgraceful that in the face of the crisis in which South Africa finds itself, they should continually be trying to convince us and the world that it is the NP and its policy alone that has brought us before these problems. But, Sir, let us say for argument’s sake that it is the policy of separate development which has placed us in this problem situation—which is of course quite ludicrous. If we make that supposition, we must look back at the history of the matter in order to see who were all participants in the system which we have now. I could quote speeches in this House by people like Mr. Harry Lawrence in order to show what his attitude was. When the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act was passed in 1953, he said here that social division was part of the way of life in South Africa.

That was a long time ago!

Yes, it was a long time ago, but it is part of history in which they had a share. Sir, until last year the policy of the Progressive Party still made provision for separate schools. Until last year their policy still made provision for separate residential areas. If this is why the world is fighting with us, then they are just as guilty. They will never shake off the echo of liberal paternalism. The non-Whites throughout the world and the non-Whites in South Africa despise them and despise the ideas which they represent, because in their hearts they know that behind it all there is an insincerity which borders on deceit. [Interjections.] Sir, it is interesting to read the speech which was recently made by the hon. member for Houghton. I want to read an excerpt from it, and let that suffice. She uttered these words—

Sir, have you ever heard in your life that a member of a party can stand up here and say to another member of that party: “I cannot echo that optimistic note?” To me this indicates something about that party. I believe and know that the radicals in that party, such as the hon. members for Houghton and Sea Point, will be rejected and cast into the outer darkness. They will no longer have a seat in this House.

I now come to the speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. That hon. member, as well as other hon. members on that side of the House, have shown in these difficult times that they are prepared to look beyond the practical problems and to look at the greater problems of South Africa. Sir, they have the right to criticize us for what we do wrong. We are grateful for this, because this helps us to work out a system in the interests of South Africa which will eventually be important for the continued existence of everyone in South Africa. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana was at loggerheads with us about separate residential areas. He spoke about discrimination and said that the Blacks cannot even own a piece of land in South Africa. I could refer him to speeches which he has delivered in the past. One newspaper report on such a speech stated: “Cadman plays on racial fears. ’ ’ I can also refer him to what his hon. leader said in 1970. They were part of that history, and now they say that we are the only ones to have sold South Africa out. In 1970 the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had the following to say in a statement to the Sunday Times—

I assume that this is still their policy, and I shall return to the legal implementation of it in a moment. But, Sir, just listen to this gem, with reference to what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, namely that a Black man cannot even own a piece of land. What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say? This is not discrimination, but a sort of liberalism. The hon. the Leader says the following—

Sir, who is “deserving”? That was their policy in 1970. We must look at that history. Yesterday, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said once again that over the years we have, with our policy of institutionalized discrimination, contributed towards this denigrated image of South Africa. I want to quote to him what his hon. leader said in the ’sixties in this same Parliament, when the Separate Amenities Act was passed. At the time he said—

This is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—

He went on to say—

In a moment I shall come to how one can stand for something without laws. I do not want to dwell on this any longer. Throughout the world, in the South American States of Brazil, the Argentine and Paraguay, in every conceivable State in which there are people of different ethnic composition living next to one another, there is discrimination and differentiation between the various population groups.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. [Interjections.] I want to drop the thread of my speech and talk to him. Does he think that if we were to repeal all discriminatory laws in South Africa tomorrow, we would move away from discrimination completely?

Of course, there is exclusiveness in all people. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the UP that if it is their policy that every person should be able to vote, they ought to consider what is happening in America at the moment. In the cities they are talking about “White flight”. Everyone could choose their children’s schools and eventually the Negro said that the Whites were discriminating against them and that the Whites should allow the Negroes to attend the same schools. The Whites left for the suburban areas. There one finds discrimination in reverse. As soon as one says that one must take all laws away, one has White people who feel that they want to remain segregated, as regards their schools, residential areas and certain other amenities at their disposal which they consider to be their right in order to preserve their identity, and immediately say that they are being swamped and want to know what their rights are. Then one must either fall back on the law to give them their rights or one must tell them that they have no rights, or—and this is happening in America—one must tell the Blacks that you are sorry that you discriminated against them and that you will now make a law to compel those Whites who did not want them there to absorb them. In this way one is creating even more tension and friction.

May I ask you a question?

No, I do not have the time. I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, other hon. members opposite, our newspapermen, academics, theologists, all those outside as well as our politicians who are playing fast and loose with the concept of discrimination, that as long as there are people of different ethnic groups in this country, we will have a system of differentiation, separation or division and as long as we have a system like this, the whole world will tell us that we are discriminating, because in the eyes of the world, the Americans in particular, all forms of division are discrimination, whether we call this differentiation or whatever. We cannot escape that charge. What is important, is that we in South Africa must choose. We must not become hysterical in these debates about discrimination on the one hand and political rights on the other. We must look at realities and ask ourselves what is in the interests of order and harmony.

We need all the laws which the NP has placed on the Statute Book because we have to choose between the order of diversity or the chaos of unity. If America, where they have a population of which only 12% are Negroes and the rest consists of other people, mostly Whites, cannot create order under a system of integration, I say that we shall never ever succeed here in South Africa. We must have order and that order will always continue to exist in the form of laws.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that we have two basic premises when we talk about getting away from discrimination. The one premise is that we want to maintain law and order and the other is that we want to protect our identity. What is our identity? There are hon. members on the other side who do not have the vaguest idea. It has already been said that the issue is not simply our White skin, but the sum total of our outlook on life, our attitude towards life and our way of life. If certain aspects are part of our way of life and we reserve these exclusively for ourselves, this does not boil down to discrimination and we cannot do away with it, because it is a part of the preservation of our identity. There are many other aspects which are in the interests of peace and order. Could it perhaps be the hon. member for Houghton’s point of view that we should, for instance, get rid of all separate measures pertaining to transport overnight?

Why not?

I will explain why I ask the question. The issue here is something very basic. It is one aspect in which, with a measure which the world does not like, we are simply succeeding in preventing friction. I will never be able to understand how we could be so stupid as to want to repeal a measure like this.

It is only your narrow mind.

Even the PRP will not want to get rid of apartheid on trains, because they will not want to share a compartment with Blacks.

The hon. member for Houghton refers to our “narrow mind”, but although we supposedly have a “narrow mind”, we have a sense of order and we have the interests of everyone at heart. That is why we tell the Black people blatantly that we will look at the measures which will not disrupt the cornerstones of our identity and the cornerstones of peace and order. We are doing so. However, we cannot say tomorrow that we are going to do away with all discriminatory measures. That would be utterly ridiculous. There are many things in South Africa—when one says this, one is perhaps sticking one’s neck out, but in my opinion it is sometimes necessary to say so—even in the sphere of our economic activities—and I say this as my own conviction and not as that of my party …

You better be careful!

I am referring to job reservation and in this connection I say that job reservation has been phased out in the South African economic system to the point that we can rightfully ask whether it is necessary for it to be on our Statute Book. Of course there are also practical problems because we must maintain order in that sphere. After all there are White workers who may cause trouble and the hon. member for Johannesburg North knows this. He knows as well as I do that in his organization and in the total economic spectrum there are no doors which are closed to such an extent so that one cannot promote Black people to where one wants them outside certain categories. The problem in South Africa, however, is that we are dealing with an immense backlog in development amongst the non-Whites.

There are other measures which we are going to look at, but there is a senseless debate in our Afrikaans-language and other newspapers that we should move away from discrimination. The Opposition is also participating in that debate. This type of debate merely creates expectations which lead to confusion. I say with utter conviction that, on the basis of the Cabinet Committee which is dealing with this, we should look at the various measures in order to determine which of them are no longer necessary. We have already advanced so far that many of the apartheid signs which are referred to so derogatorily, no longer exist. I want to point out to the hon. member for Randburg that we in South Africa have a much better record than the Americans as regards this type of separation.

Since 1953 we have had a certain provision on our Statute Book and I tried to determine whether it has ever happened in our entire history that, because they entered cafés or restaurants, non-Whites have appeared in court as happened in America during the period when they had their laws of this kind. There is also movement in the sphere of shared amenities. However, the hon. member must not blacken South Africa’s name and spoil our good intentions by creating expectations amongst the Blacks because he wants to apply pressure to a point where peace and order will be replaced by chaos and friction. We cannot allow this and the NP will never allow it. As regards dining amenities for Blacks, there is still a great deal which has to be done in our cities. This is my honest conviction. Nor am I ashamed to tell the hon. member that in a certain sense, I represent right-wing opinion in the community. I am not ashamed of this, but I want to tell the hon. member that the right-wing thinkers in South Africa are not as narrow-minded as they are made out to be. We also see the sense in doing things which must be done.

In the sphere of dining amenities I am convinced that we have reached a point in our larger urban centres where in certain places—now I am speaking of centres where Blacks and Coloureds do most of their shopping—can be taken over by them even if we have to reconsider the Group Areas Act once again in order to do so. I do not want to be misunderstood when I say this. I am merely referring to certain places in areas where these people work during the day. It is in the interests of harmony and is also a logical result of the normal development of these people. I should like to tell the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. members on the other side that if the concept of White identity, i.e. the maintenance of a community structure, residential areas, schools and institutions as well as the maintenance of political identity mean nothing to them, it does mean a great deal to us.

I am amazed that on that side as well as throughout South Africa there are people who say that the Whites have a “right” in South Africa. We do not have a “right” in South Africa. Historically it is our country, and we share it with the Coloureds and Indians. We also share our Southern Africa with the Bantu peoples. We have the common White South Africa with the Blacks who came here to work. The whole world has immigration laws. Must we in this country, White South Africa, which is ours and where we want everyone to have their rightful place, allow the sluice-gates to be opened and for the Blacks to stream in around us in their hundreds of thousands and them simply claim that this is also their country? Must we simply surrender like this? After all, we cannot be so stupid. The role of the White man in Africa, in his country, South Africa, and not a country where we have a right, is to guarantee stability, and this must be done no matter what the world says. It is for this role that each one of us on this side is prepared to live and die. We all know that there is a very large gap between what we see as an ideal and the realities in South Africa. There is a very large gap, as a result of economic factors and as a result of the immense backlog of the development of the Blacks and Coloureds, which we can do nothing about and for which we are not responsible. I believe that the greatest task of the NP, of all of us sitting here, we who will still be here when the hon. member and others will no longer be here, is to bring about order through variety according to this recipe and to set about the socio-economic upliftment of the Black peoples, the non-White communities, in a dynamic and dramatic way with a view to the improvement of employment opportunities, salaries, housing and the creation of separate social structures from which every group can grow towards a meaningful unity. The idea of the hon. member for Houghton of a “multiracial South Africa” is a complete myth.

If the multiracial idea can work in other countries of the world, the concept of a multiracial unit state will never work in South Africa without tension and friction, even if all laws are thrown overboard. We must tell this unshamedly to the world, and she must tell this to her friends throughout the world with whom she is in contact. I say this because I am sure that she does not do so. She must also tell the world that South Africa’s problems are unique and also that we have a unique solution which the NP will carry out in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that just as with other right-wing members of his party, the hon. member for Innesdal was, in fact, dealing with the new Minister of Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.] There has been a conscious attempt throughout this debate—to try to pre-empt him, and nearly everything said by that hon. gentleman over there clashes directly with the commitments of ambassador Pik Botha and his statements … [Interjections.]

I agree with every word he said.

I listened to you very carefully indeed. When the hon. member referred to Watts, I thought he was going to say that there are certain lessons to be learnt from the events there. I believe that if we had tried to learn a few lessons from that unfortunate event, we would perhaps have been spared riots in our own country. It so happens that some two weeks after the riots in Watts in 1965, I was in Watts. I spent two or three days with one of the commissioners who was entrusted with the investigation of the causes of the riots. Standing under the Santa Monica Freeway, he asked a young Black what his feelings about the riots were. The young Black replied that his feeling was one of absolute frustration. He said: “Look at those motorcars going there, going there and getting some place, but we Blacks sit here in Watts and get nowhere.” At that stage the American President had just announced the Great Society. Blacks were going to be freed from discrimination, and yet they found that they had no training, no education and no job opportunities. They did not own their own homes either. We shall not get rid of all discrimination solely by getting rid of statutory discrimination in South Africa because wherever there is prejudice there is the risk of discrimination. What we should be tackling is the root cause of discrimination, and that is prejudice.

Government propaganda.

There is no doubt that Government propaganda and legislation in South Africa have reinforced prejudice and, as a result, have reinforced discrimination. [Interjections.]

Order!

That hon. member and others on that side of the House cannot resist the temptation of trying once again to disparage the policy of the PRP. We have become used to that. We have also learnt something else, however, and that is that the more scathing the attack, the closer the time when that same policy of the PRP is to be taken over by the Government. [Interjections.] He said that we had changed our policy with regard to schools. We advocated multiracial sport at all levels for many years. Now that is the policy of the NP. We advocated the throwing open of theatres like the Nico Malan, and now that is the policy of the NP. We spoke of free, compulsory education, and now that, in principle, is the policy of the NP. We spoke of equal pay for equal work. This, however, was rejected by Dr. Verwoerd and the hon. Carel de Wet in a motion in this House. Now, however, that, in principle, is the policy of the NP. One of these days the very aspects they are disparaging today, will be taken over by them, not because they wish to do so, but because the interests of South Africa will force them to do so. This is what is going to happen to their policy in future, seen against the background of their attacks on the PRP.

There were, however, a few interesting speeches here. There was the speech by the hon. member for Moorreesburg who posed questions about the dilemma existing in the NP. That dilemma is being experienced everywhere in the NP benches. I am referring to the political rights of the Coloured, the position of the urban Black and the boundaries of the homelands. That hon. member had the courage to put these questions to his own party. I hope that we are going to receive answers to them.

Then there was the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg West, who, for a few moments, acted outside the limits of NP dogma. He stated the onslaught on South Africa and the reaction thereto in words with which we in these benches are able to associate ourselves. He said (Hansard, 13 April)—

He went on to say—

I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Innesdal to the following words of the hon. member for Johannesburg West—

That is the language which is used by the hon. member for Johannesburg West.

†Sir, I regret that the hon. the Minister of the Interior is out of town today, but I must comment briefly on the speech he made yesterday. It was a remarkable speech, both for its content and its timing. As far as content is concerned, if what he said is Government policy, there has been shown a very decided shift of emphasis and of direction, in the foreign policy of the Government of South Africa. Secondly there is the strong implication in his speech that South Africa might in certain circumstances seek military and strategic support from Communist China. That has some mind-boggling international and ideological implications for South Africa. As I walked to Parliament, someone I met up the road said people now speak of Dr. “Commie” Mulder. What the hon. the Minister said has mind-boggling implications. The hon. the Minister must tell us whether he rejects this concept. I do not believe he can.

What is perhaps much more important than the content was the timing of his speech. This important speech on foreign affairs was made by the Minister of the Interior and of Information at a time when the Foreign Minister, Dr. Muller, had just bowed out of office and the new Foreign Minister is fighting an election prior to taking his seat in the House. The speech was also made four or five days before the Prime Minister’s Vote comes under discussion, at which stage the Prime Minister normally deals with foreign affairs. I have no doubt that this is a deliberate attempt to upstage or to pre-empt the new Minister of Foreign Affairs. It is an attempt to clip his wings before he takes his seat in the House. What the hon. the Minister said about our internal policy and the lack of effect it has had on our external situation is in direct conflict with every statement made by our former Ambassador and new Minister of Foreign Affairs. I would have liked to have asked the hon. the Minister whether he discussed and cleared this speech with the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I want to ask the most senior Cabinet Minister present whether this speech was cleared with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Was it even cleared with the Prime Minister?

Did you clear your speech with Helen?

Does the hon. the Minister not believe that a speech of such importance should have been left to either the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Prime Minister of South Africa?

Obviously, no self-respecting sovereign State should or would be prepared to be dictated to from outside as regards the policies it should follow inside its own country. That is quite clear. There should be no argument about that. Naturally, every country must be prepared to accept the consequences which flow from the policies which apply in that country. Is that also agreed? The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations agrees with the first point, but he will not agree with the second. There can be no doubt that the policies which this Government has been trying to implement over the years have had a major adverse impact on South Africa’s external relationships. They have contributed to a very considerable degree to the dangerously isolated position in which South Africa finds itself today. Our view in these benches is that we should not change our policy because of America, or because of Red China; we believe that the very changes of policy which are necessary to secure internal peace and progress within South Africa, are also the policies which are going to improve South Africa’s external position. If we will make those changes, of course there will be threats, of course there will be risks, but I do believe it will take us closer to those nations who share our concern at the menace of Russian imperialism.

This budget really completes a trio of statements about the state of South Africa, one military, one political and one economic. The political one was that blunt statement by the hon. the Prime Minister on New Year’s Eve. The military one is contained in a White Paper on defence which we will be discussing next week. The other one is the economic statement by the hon. the Minister of Finance. Each of these statements reinforces the view that South Africa is facing serious dangers and threats of a fundamental nature. As far as our economic position is concerned the hon. the Minister has conceded that inflation is continuing without any real check, secondly, that the recession is continuing without any real check and thirdly, that there will be a negative growth rate on a per capita basis in South Africa in the coming year. This means that we shall not be able to improve the living standards of South Africans, we shall not be able to provide the jobs for those people coming on to the labour market, and we shall not be able to close the very dangerous gap which exists in South Africa between the economic haves and the economic have-nots. This, added to our external situation, seriously increases the dangers inherent in our heterogeneous South African society.

The three statements to which I have referred, go further. The Minister of Economic Affairs, in the field of the capital market, the Minister of Defence in his White Paper, and the Prime Minister go further and say that not only do we have serious dangerous and threats, but in fact we have to face the future alone. Militarily, strategically and to a considerable extent when it comes to the vital commodity of foreign capital, we have to face the future alone. If this is the situation, that we have to face dangers, and at the same time that we are alone, then I believe it is time that we stopped playing games about swimming baths, ballet schools and such things, because I believe that we should be co-operating in getting rid of discrimination in all of those fields. What we should be doing is devising a strategy to deal with this dangerous situation, a national comprehensive strategy which will not only deal with the immediate internal and external dangers, but will have the real prospect of moving us to a new era of economic peace and progress.

There are all the indications that the Government has a strategy and I am not reproaching them for having one. However, what I am reproaching them for is having the wrong strategy. The Government strategy appears to be to say that we cannot affect the external situation; we have difficulties there, let us prepare for the storm and batten down the hatches; let us try to mobilize all our resources and have more and more control by Government of every facet of life in South Africa. We have seen this in a number of instances during the course of the last few weeks. Increasing mobilization of resources and control by Government may adjust the balance of power for a short while, but it cannot solve our society’s fundamental problems. Indeed, a strategy of this kind, of mobilization and control everything, will create a situation where we will not have the financial resources to carry out the essential socio-economic programme, nor will we have created the climate in which we can make political changes. Both of these, I believe, are essential if we are not going to have mounting pressure for revolutionary change in South Africa and an echo in response in the international field.

Our charge against the Government is that, by adopting a policy of mobilization and control without, at the same time, adopting a policy of bold social, economic and political reform, the Government is courting disaster for all South Africans.

I want to put it to the hon. members opposite that, if it is correct that there are real threats to South Africa from outside, and if it is correct that we have to face them ourselves, we will have to ask ourselves certain questions. Will we be able to face those problems as a divided South African people? I believe we will not be able to. Secondly, will we be able to deal with these threats, unless there is a combined loyalty of all the citizens of South Africa? I believe we will not. Thirdly, if we run the risk of internal threats of a revolutionary kind which may be fomented from outside, will we be able to counter these internal threats unless we remove the seed-beds of discontent which exist, particularly in the urban areas of South Africa?

Because we cannot do these things within the framework of Government policy, we believe that the time has come for South Africa to try to develop a national strategy which will overcome immediate difficulties and which will bring about social, economic and political reform as a matter of urgency.

What then should be the essential features of this national strategy? I only have time to deal with one of these three features. It is what the hon. member for Innesdal said we should not worry about. It is to get rid of discrimination in the social field. By this I mean we should get rid of enforced apartheid in inter-personal relationships, because enforced, legalized apartheid, whatever it may be in the eyes of right-wingers in the NP, is in fact discrimination.

When Ambassador Pik Botha said: “We will do all in our power to move away from discrimination,” he meant inter alia, that we would move away from enforced apartheid in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Sport said: “If by apartheid in sport is meant discrimination on grounds of colour or race then apartheid is disappearing and will disappear from sport in South Africa.” That is also what was said at the Turnhalle. They said they were going to move away from discrimination. They meant inter alia that they were going to get rid of statutory discriminatory legislation which forces people apart. I believe this has become a matter of urgency as far as South Africa is concerned. I believe that what has to happen on that side of the House, is that hon. members will have to make up their minds. They will have to make up their minds as to whether they support the basic philosophy as propounded by the new Foreign Minister, or whether they support the basic philosophy as propounded by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education. [Interjections.] There is a gap as wide as there can be between these two points of view. I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Education that, in due course, I will deal with the lies he has been spreading about me. [Interjections.] He has spread lies inside this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to suggest that another hon. member tells lies in this House?

Order! The hon. member cannot use that expression. He must withdraw the word.

Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that the hon. the Deputy Minister told lies. I said he was spreading them.

What is the difference. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member entitled to say what the hon. member for Sea Point has just said?

Order! The hon. member for Sea Point is not allowed to say that. He must withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, …

The hon. member may put it in a different way, but he must withdraw the allegation that the hon. the Deputy Minister has been spreading lies about him in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it and say that lies have been told outside of this House, which the hon. the Deputy Minister has distributed, and secondly, that he has told untruths inside this House about my behaviour. I am afraid that that … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member not simply evading your ruling?

Order! I think the hon. member must obey my ruling and withdraw his statement unconditionally.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the statement that the hon. the Deputy Minister has spread lies about me in the House. I withdraw that unreservedly.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall return and reply to the statements of the leader of the PRP. This morning I want briefly to link something up with what was said by the former Minister of Foreign Affairs in his last speech in this House. He said that our foreign relations were dependent mainly on three factors. He said, inter alia, (Hansard, 13 April 1977)—

These are the hard facts which he gave to this House. He said further—

Thereafter he enlarged on the progress we had made in regard to the position of the Coloureds and referred specifically to the recent White Paper in this connection, as well as to the Cabinet Council which followed it. Eventually he said the following (Hansard, 13 April 1977)—

That is correct.

Yes, he is always correct, and the hon. member for Sea Point is always wrong. He said the following—

When the hon. member for Bezuidenhout paid tribute yesterday to the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, he said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, 14 April)—

I want to make it quite clear that I am one of those who admit that we have problems. We have problems with our domestic policy. I am one of those who admit that the whole world is going through one of its worst periods in the field of race, national and human relations. In every country of the world, whether it be Ireland, Uganda, South Africa, America or wherever, in every country with a relations policy which thinks in terms of human rights, or that right and justice should prevail, or that discrimination should disappear, that policy is projected internationally, regardless of the part of the world where the problem occurs. That I admit, but it remains at all times that specific country’s policy, and its problem, does it not? For this reason, the relations problem in South Africa, although it is internationally projected, remains at all times a problem of South Africa, and therefore our relations policy must be vested in South Africa and must not be prescribed for us by the world at large. Therefore I want to put it clearly that this policy, the idea underlying the relations policy of South Africa, started when this one and only White nation was established on the continent of Africa. This idea is one which developed from the experience of this White nation in its contact with other non-White peoples here in South Africa. Therefore hon. members must understand that this idea gave rise to a school of thought; that school of thought led to a direction of policy and the direction of policy to a policy. In 1948 this very idea, this policy and this school of thought formed the basis of our relations policy embodied in broad outline in the Charter of 1948 which we laid before the people of South Africa.

From a day many years before I came here in 1943 as a member of the then Opposition, but especially after assumption of office by the NP in 1948, opponents and supporters have given various names to this relations policy in South Africa. Our political opponents, or rather the communists and liberals—I am not referring to hon. members on the other side, but I am thinking of Sam Kahn—described this policy as a policy of oppression, a policy of tyranny and as a policy of blatant domination. At the same time there was a body of opinion which said it was an unscientific and immoral policy. They said further that it was an impractical and theoretical policy, a policy which could never reach fruition. No wonder the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said in 1977 that this policy of apartheid is an immoral policy and has become obsolete.

The trouble is, when we introduced this policy in 1948 and wanted to put it positively, they did everything in their power to project a wrong image of this policy. It was as though our political opponents succeeded to some extent in projecting a falsification of this policy. They did not project the policy in its real character. The dilemma is that the world outside is now dealing with a falsified instead of an excellent policy of self-determination and indigenous development in South Africa. When our political opponents unfortunately branded this policy in the manner they did, they succeeded mainly in the initial stage, when stress was laid particularly on social separation and distinctiveness, of degrading this excellent policy to a national and international swearword. That is the dilemma confronting the people of South Africa, White and non-White, today.

Thank heavens there are not only opponents of this policy but supporters too. I could even quote Gen. Smuts, but I do not have the time. In my opinion the idea underlying the relations policy in South Africa was never a concept of oppression or a concept of domination but in essence a concept of freedom. This is the case with any nation. On our birth as a White nation, as was the case with Israel, we discovered ourselves. We discovered our identity, our difference, the concept that we were a separate nation. It was that awareness of separatism and that identity which stimulated the latent national consciousness of Afrikanerdom. That has happened with every nation on earth, be it the English, Jewish or Dutch nation. It is this burgeoning national consciousness which is the revelation of a people’s national consciousness which in its turn leads to nationalism as we know it, the South African nationalism which has developed along the road of self-determination and freedom. Colonialism and imperialism were swept aside and we eventually gained a hard-won freedom. At the outset of course the progress was violent and it was achieved only after a struggle which involved incalculable sacrifices, but later progress followed a constitutional course and today we are an independent, self-determining White nation at this southern point of Africa.

Thank heavens that we ourselves and other people proposed that we should give another name to our policy. Actually, it was not a question of another name, but different names. I am not worried about that, neither am I allergic to the fact that other names have been used from time to time. There were names such as “segregation”, “guardianship”, “separate freedoms”, “indigenous development” and “separate development” as well as “multinational development”. The previous Minister of Foreign Affairs the day before yesterday referred to our policy as a policy of “self-determination”. The various names given to our policy are to me no more than a reflection of the stressing of the various phases which the South African relations policy has gone through. It is incontrovertible evidence to me of the carrying capacity, the buoyancy, the dynamics of the policy that have produced for South Africa’s White Government a record of durability and stability that has never been equalled anywhere in the civilized world. What is the reason for that durability and stability? The policy we are concerned with. Therefore, no matter what name we give it, no matter how the hon. member of Bezuidenhout rants and raves and no matter what condemnatory opinion one speaker after the other expresses on our policy, in its essence the relations policy of South Africa is a policy of national self-determination. When I listen to the varied policies expounded by hon. members on the other side, I come to the conclusion that our policy, and not the policy of the liberals or that of the PRP, is the only true policy—the real Mackay! It is the only policy which is acceptable to South Africa if we want to apply it practically in our country.

You are bluffing yourself.

You are whistling in the dark.

I want to put it very clearly. It is the right, the only policy. Hon. members opposite are trying to drive a wedge between the previous Minister and the Minister who has succeeded him, but I can assure hon. members that they follow the same policy. There is one thing which will compel the admiration of hon. members. I refer to the continuity in regard to the application of our policy by successive Prime Ministers and Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Our policy is not changing all the time; it is a policy which brings change, essential and important change.

The relations policy of South Africa is a policy of national self-determination. The hon. the Prime Minister has said in this connection—I can make quotations to prove that other Prime Ministers have said the same thing—that the ultimate aim of our policy is the goal of self-determination. Nobody can get past that. It is very clear that our policy is a policy of national self-determination. The present Prime Minister has even said that the policy of national self-determination is the prime birth-right of every nation on earth, irrespective of race and colour and irrespective of whether a man is Coloured, Indian or Bantu. Even if hon. members say our policy is theoretical, it remains what I have just called the crux, the essence of our policy. A policy of national self-determination always takes right and justice into account. If one wants to carry a policy of self-determination to fulfilment, one must in fact ensure that in practice right and justice will prevail for all people in this country; for the White nation, the Brown people, the Bantu and the Indians.

This is what our policy was and this is how we expounded it while we were still in Opposition, when we thought of it deeply and penetratingly. I find it wonderful to think that the day we achieve the eventual goal of our policy of self-determination, hon. members will see that the policy of this Christian White nation is interwoven with Christian justice, because then we will have succeeded in bringing about a reconciliation between the urge towards self-determination and that towards self-preservation of all the nations, including the White nation. That is the crux of our policy and our test, as a White nation is that we as a self-determining White nation must so adapt this policy of self-determination, so apply it, expand and develop and bring it to fruition that all the other nations in this country will eventually not only have a theoretical claim to self-determination but in the true sense of the word will also be free and self-governing. I do not shy away from this because I am one of those who know what the policy was in the old days when the UP was in power. I know the way in which we spoke of the developments the country experienced in the field of relations politics in South Africa. So I say today that this White nation will only preserve its right to self-determination and freedom if it brings its policy to fulfilment so that all the other nations will be led to freedom and self-determination. I am not speaking now as a liberal; I am speaking as a Nationalist who belongs to a nation which swept colonialism and imperialism aside. Therefore we have a policy which does not flinch, because a policy of self-determination and freedom cannot flinch. The day will dawn when immaturity and subservience will disappear from this country. That is why Dr. Verwoerd could speak as he did and that is why the present Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Pik Botha, could make that speech. They do not contradict one another. They interpret the essence of the policy of national self-determination.

I find it a moving thought that in the 20th century, when we found ourselves in a difficult situation, we looked for a policy by means of which we could extricate ourselves from that situation. Do hon. members want to ascribe the dispensation we inherited to the NP? It was a political and historical inheritance. When the White nation here came into contact with primitive and underdeveloped, different, nations, it was confronted by a certain political dispensation. We find that it was here that the White man’s superior political and national position came into being. Would hon. members say now that the NP existed at that time and that this party is responsible for that political legacy? No, we were already caught up in this at the time of and even long before the Second World War. Then, however, the NP took its policies through to their logical conclusions. It accepted the lofty aim of self-determination which is also the aim of the UNO Charter, namely—

How do hon. members arrive at their expression of a condemnatory opinion of this policy?

This hon. member is always talking of change. I acknowledge that we live in a changing world because breathtaking and astounding changes are taking place. In South Africa too change is the order of the day. This House is also undergoing a change because nobody interrupts me as they did in the old days. They know I am the father of Parliament. Even though I might say something wrong here or there, they have to sit still and listen! Changes are the order of the day, even where attitudes are concerned. However, we have created an instrument—I want to make this quite clear—and we did not create it only when we came to power. Do hon. members know when we brought about great changes? This occurred when we were in Opposition because it was then that those ideologists flooded the world. That was when they said that discrimination had to disappear and that one race could no longer be superior to another. They said: “Away with domination, away with colonialism and imperialism”. Then we as Afrikaners considered how we had obtained our freedom and self-determination and we realized that we had to put our house in order. Does the hon. member want to tell me that we did not do so? We also brought about changes, and today we have a policy. We have not only effected changes over the past 30 years. We have effected penetration, radical and even fundamental changes in the safeguarding of White and non-White in South Africa. I want to put it very clearly here today. To the leader of the Progress Party, who talks so much of change, I want to put a straight question: With all this talk, what have he and his party done to bring about changes in South Africa in the interests of the survival of the White nation and also in the interests of the peaceful co-existence of White and non-White in South Africa? As the Dutch say, “van smorgens vroeg tot savonds laat” the hon. member is always declaiming loudly: “Change, change and yet more change!” At the same time, however, they have propounded a policy which has led people on the road to a unitary society and one man, one vote; in other words, to majority government and which will lead eventually to blatant Black domination in this country. That would be the outcome of their policy. The hon. member pleads for changes, but they propound this damning policy. Mr. Speaker, you will not permit me to call it a “devilish” aim, but nevertheless these are ominous aims which they propound. As a result of the propounding of these pernicious aims—I may after all call them that, because that word is somewhat milder than the word which my brother behind me used and for which he was called to order the other evening …

They say it is actually the home of the devil!

I am trying to put things clearly here. It is because of these pernicious aims that he says he wants to bring about change, but the announcement of those aims has had a blunting effect on the feelings of White South Africa in regard to the introduction of essential changes in South Africa. Thank God there was an NP to deal with the situation realistically! We immediately considered our policy. We said we must establish a policy which would bring about change and eventually we decided upon the creation of an instrument of change, a progressive instrument for change in this country. Then we put this instrument or policy change to the nation for approval. At that time, however, we were an opposition party. Thereafter we introduced the second beneficial and fortunate change, and that is why I have been so amicable over the past 34 years. We brought about a change of government in South Africa for and on behalf of White and non-White in South Africa. It was that Opposition’s dilly-dallying with their policy which led Dr. Malan to say on one occasion that if we were not careful one day we would find written over the history of South Africa: “Too late.”

However, we brought about a third change. Our policy is not a policy which changes from day to day. Those hon. members change their policy daily. We have the same policy, but it is a policy of change, a policy which brings about changes. Over the past 30 years we have introduced one change after the other, because it is only this instrument of progress, this instrument of change in an orderly society, in a country where there is peace and calm and good order which enables us to introduce the essential, inevitable changes. It makes no difference if the changes are labelled radical or fundamental. In fact, we have introduced several fundamental changes; for example, in respect of the Transkei, etc. I do not want to dwell on that. I hope there are no hon. members here who object to my making use of the word “radical” or “fundamental”. These are everyday expressions which I want to use today when talking on this matter. I want to put the case very clearly here today. I was almost the youngest member when I came here in 1943. Today, it is said, I am the oldest member.

Still young!

Yes, I am still young in spirit. That is why I am not verkramp. I am verlig. I pray each morning: “Lord, enlighten my understanding.” There is a threat to our fatherland, is there not? This threat has various components. One of the most important aspects is the handling of our relations policy which I want now to bring to the attention of hon. members. I have seen the formulation of this policy and I have seen the acceptance of the policy, and in the course of time I have seen the application of the policy, the adaptation of the policy, the expansion and the development. What we still need, of course, is still further policy acceleration to policy fulfilment. We are at all times active in this regard. It is not for me to say whether we are doing it rapidly enough. We have often experienced merciless circumstances. On the one hand we have undergone reckless pressure from the right and on the other hand we have had pressure from the ultra-liberals.

Such as Piet Marais.

No, not from Mr. Marais. He made a good speech. He should just have made it in the caucus. [Interjections.] The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has interrupted me. I know that he cannot speak because he represents a conglomeration of political factions from all over Parliament.

All I said was that if he had made his speech in the caucus he would have been ruled out of order.

No, we would have had an exchange of ideas and given it deep thought, and then we could have produced a useful policy formulation and in this process we would have taken our party with us. We would not have acted as the hon. Leader did and allowed the party to disintegrate and so chased the best intellectual forces out of the party. We mobilize our intellectual powers. We discipline them by an exchange of ideas. We do not just suspend left and right. We suspended only one man. They allowed me to suspend Japie Basson and he has been sitting there to this day. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak dramatically. As you see, I am completely calm. I am not emotional, but I do think that I must say these things. In the times in which we live, it is said that a threat confronts us. We hear talk of a struggle for existence, a struggle for survival. But I want to remind everyone in South Africa, English- and Afrikaans-speaking, that it was the White population, our White nation, hundreds of years ago when this was an inhospitable country, which cleared it and made it habitable for Christian civilization. What wrong is there in the hon. member for Johannesburg West speaking of the maintenance of a Christian civilization? After all, we are a Christian nation. We do not even speak of a White civilization. We speak of “Christian” and we speak of “civilization”. It has to be a Christian civilization. Our nation established a record in its cleaning-up process and its treatment of the non-Whites. Even Mr. Hofmeyr as a liberal admitted that we had treated our Black people well. We did not engage in wars of extermination. But I do not want to draw comparisons.

I want to say to the PRP that our Afrikaners and English-speaking South Africans— Afrikaners and South Africans are the same thing to me—in this hour of need do not have time for this spirit of I could almost say catastrophic pessimism which has flowed through this debate and come from that side. This is no time for shirkers. This is no time for weaklings, for people without marrow in their bones or who are weak-kneed. This is no time for those who want to surrender, or traitors or renegades. This is not the time for people like that. Now everybody agrees with me. Everybody agrees now. We must stand together now as never before.

The other change the NP has introduced— fortunately I still have another minute—the most important change the NP has introduced is that with the development and evolution of its policy it has placed these changes together with its policy before the people of South Africa and has succeeded in bringing about an attitude receptive to change among the Whites of South Africa. Without the creation, the cultivation and the strengthening of a desire for change we would not have been able to introduce these changes, but thank heavens the NP has motivated the nation—I just want to finish this sentence, Mr. Speaker—to bring about these necessary changes; we could do it because we brought about a change of attitude among the people. It is still not too late, said Mr. Harry Schwarz of Yeoville; there is still time, but then we must carry out that policy. We must put our policy into operation. Then we will find written over South Africa, not “downfall”, but “South Africa saved”; not “too late” but “saved in time” as a result of the policy application, adaptation and evolution and the policy acceleration to policy fulfilment for the salvation of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brits amazed me this morning. He tried to imply here that the hon. member for Moorreesburg was being a little mischievous, but does the hon. member really want to tell us that the hon. member for Moorreesburg did not at least practise his speech a little in the caucus? I really do not think that this could be the case.

It is only your caucus which says that everything is ludicrous.

The hon. member for Brits has lost his sense of humour for the moment. The hon. member spoke very earnestly about the initiative in the NP. With his knowledge of political history, I think he would be the first to agree with me that in 1948 the NP did not set out its policy in the same idiom as was done by the hon. member this morning. In one sense this is a pity, because if the people had realized what the NP was doing at the time, they could possibly have considered the matter from another point of view. I also want to say immediately that one welcomes the metamorphosis in the NP over the course of 30 years. I also want to add that it is a pity that the type of policy which the hon. member explained to us here this morning, is still considered in certain circles today as a policy of White supremacy. I think that this is wrong. There are definitely aspects of the policy with which one cannot agree, but I think that it is detrimental to the country and to our people to continue with a story which suggests that as it is being carried out at the moment, the policy is one of White supremacy.

I should like to discuss the budget briefly. If one can accept the reporting by the public Press as a reflection of public opinion, I think that it can be said in general that, the budget as delivered by the hon. the Minister, was well received. Having said this, does not mean that the people are not deeply concerned about the economic lot in which they find themselves. All levels of the people, businessmen, industrialists, professional people, workers, etc. are becoming more and more and increasingly concerned about the pressure of inflation; they are becoming more and more aware of the way in which the cost of living is eating into their monthly income month after month, and they are finding it more and more difficult to balance their household budgets. The people are aware of all these things and the people also feel the effect on their pockets, but nevertheless— according to the Press—the people accept an onerous budget. They accept onerous economic conditions and the question which occurs to me, is this: Why is this the case? Why is there not a countrywide revolt against the spiral of inflation, against the oppressive cost of living? I think that at least part of the answer can be found in the instinctive realization which is growing amongst the people, the realization that we have reached an hour of crisis in the existence of our nation. The people outside realize instinctively that steps will have to be taken in the next few years in order to help us out of the depression or otherwise it will be the end of our people. In circumstances like this any nation which is worth its salt, and I believe that the South African nation is worth its salt—is prepared to make its economic and other sacrifices. But there are grave duties which rest upon the leaders of the nation in a time like this. One of those duties is definitely to continue dealing with the questions concerning the actual continued existence of the people and to solve these and not merely play at politics; not to make a political football of matters which concern one’s continued existence.

I believe it is common cause that one of the things on which our future depends, is the very question of racial relations in South Africa. There is no facet of our community which is not affected by this question to a lesser or greater degree. Our economic life, labour, education, internal affairs, foreign affairs, even this budget, is affected by it. The thread of colour, the warning red threat of colour runs through all these things. It runs through the entire life of South Africa. But who in this House can deny that politicians, White and non-White, have played with this dangerous question in a petty party-political way over the years, that they have made a party-political football of this very question? This is a question which is actually our Achilles heel. However, we carried on with this question and moved from platform to platform, while we played politics with it under the illusion that we could win a few votes with it.

The people feel instinctively that we have reached an hour of crisis. However, the people feel something else too. The people realize that the politicians of South Africa are playing petty politics with this question, while the fires which threaten our continued existence, the fires of danger, are moving ever closer to the borders of our country. I believe that I am correct in saying that the majority of the people are sick and tired of the colour question in South Africa. More than ever before the electorate—whether Afrikaans or English-speaking—want to have at least a national answer to the colour question in White politics and want, in White politics at least, a peaceful solution to be found to this question. I am convinced of this.

I know that a question as important as this one will never be completely resolved. One will always come up against people who do not agree with one, on the one hand people who believe in the right to maintain a group identity, and on the other hand people who believe in a Unitarian community. There is no conciliation possible between these two groups of people.

It is impossible!

It is impossible, but I believe and am convinced that the people who believe in the right to self-preservation, the right to a group identity, are growing in number by the day, and that they already represent the majority of the people by far. I believe that peace must be made between those people. We dare not continue to argue about those very questions on which our enemies abroad attack us in the most serious and merciless way, and to turn them into a petty White political issue.

Now the question arises how one can do so. I have listened to all the speeches which were made here during the past few days, and the question arose in my mind whether something like this is practicable in South Africa. Is it practicable to achieve peace between those people who feel the same way about the basic things at least—and here I mean the right to maintain a group identity— in order to make it possible for us to work out a future path for South Africa together and to iron out problems which still exist, together.

I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about the fact that I should like to see a kind of—for lack of a better term— White Turnhalle being created among the Whites who feel the same way about basic things, a Turnhalle in which we Whites will be seated around a table together and work out our future together. I do not mean this to be a movement back towards the laager. That is the last thing which I want to see happening. It can at least be the first step in our process of finding ourselves once again and then moving out and doing our duty, and also rectifying all those things which, as we all know, are wrong in our community.

Each one of us can draw up a list of things which we should like to see being done. However, as a South African I am not prepared to continue to wash the dirty washing—if I may call it that—of my people and community before the whole world. Every community, every nation in the world has a skeleton in the cupboard, but if a nation finds that the world wants to destroy it because of this skeleton, it would be stupid to drag it out at every opportunity and parade it for the world so that it may be attacked. This is what we are doing. We do not want to learn. Who must begin discussions like this? The Opposition is talking about national conventions. We can forget about that. If one wants co-operation between people who basically feel the same way, although our methods may differ, there is just one authority which can do so, and this is the Government of the day. My modest opinion is that the present Government is in duty bound to do just that. The Government will have to do so if they want us to stop the type of debate which we are having in the House now, because it is not doing South Africa any good at all.

Because I say that I agree with the Government on the basic principle of group identity, there will be people who will want to play politics and will want to know why I do not join the NP. This is nonsense, of course. I do not need the colour question in order to differ with the Government. Throughout the Western world there are numerous parties with political divisions without a colour question. It is nonsense to allege something like this. This is the politics of panic, it is scare mongering politics. I am prepared to say that I agree with the Government here—even if it should be held against me politically—because I think that the time has come for us to ask one another: “Am I going to serve my party, or am I going to serve my country?” If I must be damaged in a party-political sense because I made an attempt to serve my country, then that must happen. I cannot do anything about it.

I want to address a serious request to the Government to bring this about, because they alone have the power to do so. I know that an hon. Minister is going to speak after me. The hon. the Minister must tell me where he stands in regard to this question and what the Government is prepared to do in an attempt, as I said, to create a Turnhalle of English and Afrikaans-speaking Whites who have basically the same ideas on this question. Then they can come together in an attempt to iron out our problems and possibly bring about political peace amongst the Whites. I know that White peace is not the only answer. We need peace and co-operation between all the races if we want to enter the future safely. However, I say that as a first step and highest priority peace must first be obtained amongst those people who basically think the same way, and then one can move away, do one’s duty and rectify those things which we all know should be rectified in our community.

Mr. Speaker, I want to react at once to the speech made by the hon. member for Maitland by telling him that he made a very constructive speech and that we appreciate many of the things he said, but in respect of the specific question he asked, I just want to tell him that the Government is just as eager as he is to defuse the emotionalism that permeates the colour question. We do not need a Turnhalle for this, however, We are a generous party. The doors of Cabinet Ministers and others are always open and hon. members are welcome to come and discuss matters with us at any time. Consequently, there is no need for a Turnhalle.

Before I proceed with my speech, I want to refer to the attack the hon. member for Umhlatuzana made on the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry as a result of that hon. Minister’s admonition of the hon. member for Johannesburg North for what I consider to be that hon. member’s excessive arrogance. I want to tell the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who is a good friend of mine, that I think he was unfair towards the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, who, both in his private and public life, has never shown any signs of racial hatred. I want to tell the hon. member that instead of trying to detect signs of racial hatred and sectionalism on the part of the Afrikaner, he could spend his time much more profitably by setting himself an ideal and that ideal should be to become as bilingual as his fellow Natalian, the hon. the Minister of Finance. In the process, he would enhance his very clear and unmistakable leadership qualities.

I do not think it is unfair to the Opposition if I say that their performance in this debate has, on the whole, been one of negative drudgery. One of the reasons for this was that the mentor of the Opposition as a whole, the Financial Mail, warmly praised the budget. Consequently, the Opposition had to formulate their own criticism, which they found to be a difficult task. I agree whole-heartedly with the Financial Mail, which warmly praised the retiring Secretary of Finance.

My real reason for rising was to discuss the new vogue that has arisen here in the House itself and in the Press outside of making wild allegations about emigration and immigration and of trying to imply that there is a lack of confidence in our country. I want to point out a few examples. The headline of The Pretoria News of 6 December 1976 read: “Immigrants shy away from South Africa.” A report in The Star of 1 December 1976 read: “Doctors book to fly out.” One can expect this from those people, however. What grieved me most, however, was having to listen to the following words in the no-confidence debate from a good patriot like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Hansard, col. 17)—

This is an irresponsible statement, a statement that could do our country a lot of harm and one I would not have expected from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. What are the facts about 1976? From January to December 1976, 46 071 people came and settled in the country and 15 302 emigrated. This represents a net gain of 30 769. This figure is one of the very best we have ever had.

However, what are the facts relating to immigrants and emigrants who described their occupations as professional, technical or related? I shall repeat the facts. In the period January 1976 to December 1976 there were 5 971 immigrants and 2 028 emigrants in this group. This yields the particularly impressive net gain of 3 943 professional and technical people. I should like to point out a few individual professions in the group. 384 civil engineers entered the country as immigrants whilst only 105 emigrated. 596 electrical and electro-technical engineers entered the country as immigrants whilst only 261 emigrated. As far as the much discussed doctor’s profession is concerned, 228 entered the country and only 79 left. Another very important group is that of secondary, primary and pre-primary teachers. 350 of these entered the country and 175 left. Therefore, there have been considerable gains in all respects. I want to quote still more impressive figures, the figures for the year 1976 in respect of former South Africans and inhabitants of South Africa who have returned to South Africa. To that end and for obvious reasons, I am dividing the year 1976 into what I want to call the pre-Soweto and post-Soweto periods. In other words, the periods will be from January 1976 to June 1976 and from July 1976 to December 1976. In the pre-Soweto period, 1 435 former South African citizens and 1 468 people who had previously had permanent residence in South Africa, returned to South Africa. This is a total of 2 903 for the six months prior to the events at Soweto. In the post-Soweto period, 1 561 former South African citizens as did 1 419 people who previously had had permanent residence in South Africa. This is a total of 2 980 for the six months after the Soweto occurrences as against 2 903 for the six months prior to them. In other words, more people in the group concerned returned to South Africa in the six months after the Soweto occurrences than in the period before them. It is of course fair to compare our position to comparable countries. What was the position in Australia in 1976? I quote from The Star of 29 June 1976 in which there appeared a report of the Washington Post News Service. I quote—

According to this report, one of the reasons why people are leaving Australia and not entering the country in large numbers, is political instability. I now turn to New Zealand. According to the Canberra Times of 10 August 1976, New Zealand suffered a net immigrant loss of 113 in the year ending 30 June 1976. The previous year’s gain was 27 768. In conclusion, I want to admit that the figure for January, which you are already acquainted with, shows a considerably diminished gain. The primary reason for this, however, is that in the months prior to January, the Department of Immigration, at the request, inter alia, of employers’ organizations, became far more selective in recruiting people. In any event, the net gain still remains in all the occupational groups I mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether there has been another year in the past five or six years in which more than 2 000 professional technical people left the country?

Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to reply to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on that question. In any event, I have pointed out that our gains have been considerable and that there was no reason to harm our country publicly in this regard. I have one final impressive figure and this, too, relates to January 1977. Although I readily admit that our gain diminished considerably in this month, only 591 South African citizens left the Republic for good. This is despite the fact that as we know, there were special reasons why certain occupational groups wanted to go to America, for example, in January in particular.

To sum up, then, I can say that we have nothing to be ashamed of as far as our statistics relating to emigration and immigration are concerned. The figures cannot be used to prove a lack of confidence in the country and anyone who tries to do this is rendering his country a disservice.

As far as the budget itself is concerned, the two largest Opposition parties, true to their nature, adopted a predominantly negative attitude towards it. Apart from the fact that this is a very responsible budget and that it has been highly praised outside Government circles, there are also certain things in the budget which, not for the sake of the Government, but for the sake of the common duty we have towards our country, have to be identified, even by the Opposition. I want to refer to one item under the Department of Public Works, a department that has a modest Vote. Despite the modest amount appearing under this Vote, the department will spend R23 million in the year 1977-’78 on buildings for Coloured education. If we look at the appropriations for the Department of Community Development in respect of Coloured housing, the facts and figures are even more dramatic. However, the two largest Opposition parties have attempted very ostentatiously to cause a feeling of guilt to take root in the NP in the hope of making us give up basic policies. Great Britain’s new Minister of Foreign Affairs was so good as to teach us a new word. The word is “ethos”. He said this had to form the basis of a policy. There are internationally recognized methods for obtaining land and establishing sovereignty. I want to state unequivocally that the NP is sure that its policy in respect of, and the White nation’s view of, the acquisition of land and sovereignty in this country, rests on ethical grounds. Prof. J. J. Oberholzer said recently in an informative lecture that those methods comprised conquest, peaceful occupation, agreement and purchase. Down the years, the White nation has made use of particularly the last three methods and has made the very least use of conquest. This, of course, is a sore point amongst communists and radicals because they realize that the White nation in this country, as in Australia and America, has a strong case. That is why radicals like Keith Gottschalk and others strongly reject the standpoint I have just outlined to hon. members. In other words, they strongly reject the proposition that the White man has an ethical basis for the occupation of White areas. In this regard, they refer specifically to prejudiced historians, inter alia, Monica Wilson and Leonard Thompson, historians who, incidentally, are most often quoted by the S.A. Communist Party as well. We feel that the White nation has an ethical basis for its existence, establishment and survival in this country.

The hon. member for Mooi River should now listen carefully. I am not saying the “Afrikaans nation”, but the “South African White nation”. They have suffered a lot; they have gone without a lot of things and have struggled hard to build up this beautiful country into what it is today. The NP will do everything in its power, at an accelerated tempo and with increasing expenditure and sacrifice, to develop separate liberties dynamically. In the process, however, we shall not allow ourselves to be put off our stroke by extreme leftist and extreme rightist groups which are simply destructively inclined and will fight us tooth and nail as, incidentally, we are fighting the extreme rightists in Westdene at the moment. Nor will any compromises be made which would sell out or endanger the Whites’ hard-earned liberty.

Before I sit down, I should also like to speak to the PRP. I regard that party as being a party of submission and I want to suggest to them that if they do not yet have an emblem, a white flag would be a good emblem for them. If they so wish, they could cross this with a pink flag. I want to tell the hon. the leader of the PRP today that his party is taking its first uncertain steps in a grey world, steps which will not only be responsible for the disintegration of his party—I am sure that not everyone in that party agreed with what the party is doing—but which will also lead to endless grief, dissension and strife in this country, and that is something we cannot afford.

In this regard, I want to refer specifically to the multiracial congress that was held at Jan Smuts Airport. An astonishing thing happened there. The PRP took the initiative and convened this congress. In their paternalistic attitude, they probably thought they would control the congress and guide it in a certain direction but then the astonishing situation arose in which, if newspaper reports are correct—I speak under correction; I was not there myself—when Chief Gatsha Buthelezi arrived, the Black Power salute was given fairly generally at the meeting, at his instigation and with acclamation.

What is the newspaper reference?

I have it here and I shall send it to the hon. member. I cannot find it at the moment [Interjections.] The next astonishing development was that instead of the PRP taking the initiative, Chief Buthelezi took it. According to The Citizen of 6 December 1976, he said—

In other words, at a meeting where they tried to take the initiative, Chief Buthelezi took it and told them like a school teacher: “This is the position; your policy is worth nothing to the Black man.” The newspaper report goes on to say—

What was the further consequence of this? Like a lowly school boy, the hon. the leader of the PRP replied, and once again I am quoting—

The hon. leader went on to say that his view of the matter was that Parliament had to be consulted at all times, or words to that effect. The point is that he already has people in his own parliamentary team who are of the opinion that Parliament need not be consulted at all times and there are definitely many radical members in his party outside the House who are of the same opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I want to state deliberately that the PRP is taking its first steps in a grey world and is doing things over which, later on, it will itself have no control. They have taken the initiative in the direction which can have only one outcome, viz. the outcome that their friend, their mentor, their mastermind, suggested in Cape Town the other evening. I am referring, of course, to Dr. Beyers Naude, who said to Nusas in Cape Town the other evening—

Whether the hon. member for Sea Point chooses to believe this or not, he, his friends and his fellow-travellers are moving in that direction with the initiative they are taking.

May I ask a question?

No, I have only a few minutes left. Finally, I want to say that I am not very worried about the PRP because they carry the seed of destruction within themselves. We have already seen from the remarks of the hon. member for Yeoville that there are tremendous differences in their conceptions of patriotism. The hon. member who wanted to ask me a question is strongly opposed to school integration. We shall live to see younger members on that side living in middle-class residential areas, strongly opposing residential integration. Moreover, by their action last year, and their publication in Deurbraak of the astonishing and ridiculous allegations Dreyer Kruger made about the Afrikaner, they initiated an attack on the Afrikaner that was followed up by the Sunday Times—and by people like Gatsha Buthelezi; an attack that will make the PRP, except for a few lost souls they have in their midst at the moment, completely unacceptable to the Afrikaner in future. I therefore have no fear that they will constitute a factor of any weight in this country’s politics in future. On the contrary. I have every hope that they will soon disappear.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister took it amiss of me that I mentioned the numbers of professional and technical people who have left South Africa during the past year. It was not my intention to harm South Africa by doing so. I only wanted to draw attention to the fact that South Africa cannot afford to lose one single professional or technically trained person. It is no answer to tell me that there was a net profit. I accept that. But that net profit is not big enough. If there is one shortage in South Africa, it is a shortage of professional and technically trained people.

Is the figure not much better than in Australia?

I am not interested in such comparisons, because in South Africa, with the enormous number of people who are not trained, especially Blacks, we need professional and technical guidance more than any other country in the world, except possibly Russia.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before the lunch adjournment, I was dealing with the question of the complaint of the hon. the Minister of Immigration to me at my making mention of the fact that professional and technical people were leaving South Africa at a greater speed at the beginning of this year than at any time I had known. I believe that those figures are correct, and that that is the situation, very much as I regret it.

I am extremely pleased that the hon. member for Beaufort West is in the House this afternoon, because I would like to take this opportunity—as other speakers on this side of the House have done—of saying to him how much we shall miss him. However much we differed politically, we have at least been able to discuss foreign affairs with him in a civilized manner. We are greatly appreciative of the attitude he has taken up, both in this House and on behalf of the country overseas.

We are now reaching the end of this debate on the budget and everybody seems to be agreed about certain things. We have been criticized for being negative in our approach. I want to assure hon. members opposite that I intend being constructive. I am not even going to follow the American Ambassador to the United Nations and suggest that this Government is illegitimate. To me it is disgustingly legitimate. It is the one thing about it that worries me, and that is that it has got there legitimately.

You cannot be serious, can you?

I am serious. In the evaluation of this budget, as I was saying, people seem to have reached agreement on a number of points. The first is that this budget, coupled with the taxation measures which preceded it, is going to make living very much more expensive for everybody. The cost of living is going to go up. Secondly, the withdrawal of R45 million in food subsidies is going to affect the poorest people in the country, and affect them adversely and severely. Tragically, that means our Black and Brown population. Thirdly, the R103 million allocated for Black education and non-White housing is probably less than one-fifth of what is needed to make a real impression in this field. I think, fourthly, it has become clear during the discussion of this budget that we do not have the money from orthodox sources to meet both our defence requirements and to alleviate non-White grievances. When I speak about non-White grievances, I mean discrimination in social welfare benefits, the failure to give equal pay for equal work and responsibility, and I mean discrimination in health and hospital services. It is clear that, from orthodox sources, we do not seem to have enough to pay for defence and to alleviate those grievances. Fifthly, the result of this budget, I believe, is going to be that unemployment will mount and increase, particularly amongst the Blacks in South Africa. I will not say it was the intention of the hon. the Minister to increase unemployment, but I believe that the effect of this budget is undoubtedly going to be that unemployment will increase.

These five factors, taken together, mean only one thing. They mean a greater strain on race relations in South Africa. A greater strain on race relations means more difficulties in budgeting in the future. Already the hon. the Minister has had to have recourse to unorthodox sources, and is indulging in, shall I call it, the socialist practice of commandeering private capital for Government purposes.

He is robbing the piggy bank!

It is not a socialist practice at all.

The hon. the Minister says it is not a socialist practice. It is very prevalent in socialist countries, though. One cannot help asking oneself what is going to happen next year. [Interjections.] Nobody can see an upswing in the economy leading to significantly greater revenue hauls in the immediate future, unless political peace and security return to South Africa. And who can see that happening under this Government? Political insecurity with its attendant decline in the inflow of overseas capital and in economic growth must also mean a decline in private investment and private institutional investment. That is always the effect of political insecurity. Declining profits lead to lower corporate saving and lower salary levels. This, in turn, leads to lower “consumer” saving out of salaries. Forced investment in Government debt by the institutions will mean less to hand out to investors and less for them to save. I asked what is going to happen next year. Next year the Government may be forced to take twice as much from the institutions. The funny thing about Ministers of Finance is that once they have their hands on a source of capital or revenue they do not tend to take them away again. They tend to exploit that source even more. Next year the hon. the Minister may find himself seeking to take double that amount from the institutions. Eventually all institutional business may become Government business. Already we have heard talk of the investigation of nationalizing the insurance companies. We will become more and more of a socialist state, a socialist state in which we work for only two things: One is more defence expenditure and the other is the pacification of non-White demands. That is the direction in which we are going with this Government. What a prospect for South Africa!

Those of us who have made any study of foreign affairs are, I think, aware that there is a socio-economic revolution taking place in the countries of the Western world. It has been in process over the last few decades. It is a socio-economic revolution which is taking place for a host of reasons, i.e. attacks on privilege, lack of raw materials, the shortage of energy and the disruption in the economy resulting from these things. This revolution is taking place among South Africa’s best customers overseas and as a result it is beginning to affect us. Some people say that it is here already. Because of our racial problems the effect of it in South Africa may be very much more severe than in overseas countries where we have seen it developing over the last 10 to 20 years. It is quite certain that we shall not be able to cope with these forces or the forces of Black socialism and Marxism to the north of us unless we can share the benefits of our private enterprise system with all our peoples in such a way that all of them will be anxious to maintain and defend the system. Unless they have a share in the private enterprise system and unless they share in its benefits, they are never going to want to defend it against Black socialism and the Marxist system. I think that events in our Black and Brown townships in the past year, the report of the Erika Theron Commission and some of the evidence already given to the Cillié Commission, show how far we are from achieving this aim. Unless we achieve it we are going to be in mortal danger no matter how much we spend on defence. We are going to be in mortal danger because we shall not be able to carry our own local population with us.

In the course of his budget speech the hon. the Minister said he could not call on us to “spend for prosperity”. I think that what he should have called for was for us to spend for security. However, what we must spend in the first instance, is not money, but it must be a truly massive contribution in initiative and ingenuity to devise new ways to achieve a peaceful and universally acceptable political solution in South Africa. That is what we need. We all know what our most urgent needs are. They are to establish a political, social and economic system in which all our peoples can live in peace, harmony and happiness, to ensure the maximum safety and security of our country and its people and to ensure the optimum development of our human and economic resources.

I do not think there is anyone today that would suggest that this Government is achieving those aims. In fact, it is falling short on all of them. It is particularly falling short on the maximum use of our human resources in South Africa.

How can one talk of establishing a political, economic and social system in which all our people live in peace, harmony and happiness when one has a system which does not provide for everyone to share a common loyalty to South Africa, when the system does not even make a pretence for everyone to have equitable and responsible participation in the decision making which affects their future destiny, when it does not safeguard any group from domination by another group or groups? What must one say of a system in which there is no equality of economic opportunity, inter alia, because of Government enactments, a system in which the benefits of the free enterprise system are very largely reserved for the members of one race group because of legislation passed by this Parliament, a system in which equal pay for equal work and responsibility is not universally accepted as Government policy? What does one say of a system in which the taxation bears viciously unfairly on the Black population when in the lower income groups they are called upon to pay higher taxes than members of the White group? How can one talk with satisfaction of a social system in which due respect for personal dignity is not universally accorded regardless of race, colour or creed? How can one feel happy about the protection of personal security when under existing legislation free access to impartial courts of law is so often denied to the individual? The failure to maintain law and order has placed the lives and security of so many people in South Africa in jeopardy.

Today more and more people are beginning to say that in South Africa we have only two choices under this Government. We must either prepare to fight it out on our borders—and possibly internally as well, if urban terrorism gets a hold—or we must come to terms with the West and make the necessary changes internally to restore confidence in South Africa, to attract foreign capital, to terminate arms boycotts, to re-open the channels of international trade and to re-establish South Africa as a respected member of the community of nations. I believe there is a third choice.

I believe that the third choice is a more acceptable one, and that is so to conduct our affairs that we not only engender a common loyalty to South Africa amongst all our peoples, but establish a political, economic and social system of such a kind that all our peoples are prepared to fight and to defend it. That is the third alternative. I am aware that that alternative will call for big sacrifices and for determined and immediate action, but the dividends from such action and from the adoption of such a system could be immense and to the lasting benefit of South Africa. What will that require? I think it will require four steps. First of all it will require the improvement of the general climate in race relations by the removal of legitimate grievances. Secondly, it will require the urgent strengthening of our economy and steps to ensure that the benefits of the free enterprise system are enjoyed by all the communities in South Africa. Thirdly, it will require the development, in full consultation with the various communities, of a federal or confederal constitutional structure for South Africa. I shall have more to say about that later on. Fourthly it will require the removal of those conditions which constitute a fertile breeding ground for communism in South Africa under this Government. Those are the four things we need.

Give us more detail.

The hon. gentleman says that he would like to have some detail. First let me say that if we were to achieve those four objectives, it could confidently be expected that that would ensure South Africa’s right to participate, to contribute and to enjoy safety and security as a member of the African region and the community of the free world of nations. The hon. member wanted details as to how these things were to be achieved. One could say an awful lot about how the objectives are to be achieved, but I want to confine myself to the bare essentials today.

No one denies today that our race relations are bedevilled by grievances, legitimate and imaginary, amongst our non-White people. Nor does anyone deny that if those grievances which are legitimate were to be removed, the general climate in race relations would be improved. The problem is to identify those grievances which are regarded as legitimate by all communities and to determine how to remove them without causing unnecessary disruption. We have suggested, and I want to suggest again today, that one way of doing that would be by the formation of a Council of State in which all communities would be represented, perhaps even in an advisory capacity, and for them to consult with each other and to review all matters which affect inter-group relations and the general welfare of our people. Such a Council of State was purely advisory in South West Africa and I have not heard any criticism of how it operated. Why could we not have such a system here? It could function until we have a new constitution working and operating effectively. Hand in hand with that operation there should be the introduction of formal consultative machinery at all other levels of authority where the interests of more than one community are involved. The Government has already taken its first few faltering steps in that direction, but what is needed is its universal application and it is needed very quickly indeed.

I have just spoken of legitimate grievances. I think all hon. members on the other side of the House will agree with me that there is no single aspect of Government policy which has so harmed race relations as unfair, inequitable discrimination on the grounds of race or colour alone. No progress is going to be made in the general climate in respect of race relations unless this structure is dismantled by the immediate repeal of laws, other legal enactments and administrative measures which are responsible for that discrimination existing. That will include the extension of full citizenship rights to all our citizens. When I talk of full citizenship rights I want to clear up any possible misunderstanding. I believe that those full citizenship rights are civil rights, political rights and social rights.

By civil rights I mean the fundamental right of protection, of person and property, of equality before the law, of freedom of speech and religion, the right to home ownership and of undisturbed family life, freedom of assembly and of association and things of that nature. When I talk about political rights, I talk about the right to participate in decision-making within a federal-confederal framework. When I talk about social rights, I talk about equality of opportunity, economically and educationally, and the right to enjoy all the advantages that legitimately flow from that system. There should be no trouble about this. The Government has undertaken to eliminate discrimination. It has appointed a Cabinet Committee to go into the matter. What has happened? Some two years ago a Cabinet Committee was appointed to go into the question of the removal of discrimination. Is the Government incapable of realizing that unless immediate steps are taken, the position is deteriorating every day? Are they as incapable of understanding that immediate steps are necessary? Do they not realize that hopes have been created in the hearts of people who believed when that statement was made at the United Nations, that there would come a change? These people believed, when they heard that a Cabinet Committee had been appointed, that action would result. What has happened? The position is just as it was, if not worse in many respects.

A lot of things have happened. [Interjections.]

I do not propose to indulge in a dialogue with the hon. the Deputy Minister but I will accept that the elimination of grievances may cost money and it may require sacrifices. Because it costs money it is urgently necessary to strengthen our economy, but this may be no easy matter, because the problems that beset the hon. the Minister of Finance are due primarily to past and present Government policies and not to world recession. The gold price is after all three or four times as high as it was in 1973. Mineral prices in rand values are at their previous high peaks before the oil crisis. Agricultural export prices are good. Why are we then in our present mess? I will tell hon. members why we are in our present mess. We are in this mess because Government policies and their consequences have destroyed the confidence of overseas investors. [Interjections.] It is quite clear that capital inflows have dried up. Capital inflows, as the Minister of Finance himself pointed out, in the past represented between 10% and 15% of fixed investment in South Africa.

The second reason for our problems is the difficulties that have arisen in respect of labour because of Government policies. The ratios imposed by the Physical Planning Act between Black and White labour, job reservation, and the lack of education and technical training in the past, have led to South Africa’s improvement in labour productivity being one of the lowest in the industrialized societies of the world.

According to Prof. Sadie, in the past six years wages have gone up by 97% and productivity by 9%. That is the problem we are faced with. [Interjections.] Something else has happened, however. By dispersing industry to the border areas, manufacturing units have become smaller and long runs have become impossible, so the cost of production has gone up. My friend is right, and it is the Government’s fault that it has gone up. The net result of Government policies is that we have had a pathetic rate of growth in the past five years. To create sufficient jobs for our fast-growing population the economic development programme calculated that South Africa must have a real rate of growth of 6,4% per annum. I think the figures for our rate of growth have already been furnished: 3% for 1971 to 1972; 3,6% the next year; 7,1% the year after that, then 2% and then 1,5%. This is an average over five years of about 2,45%, and what do we have this year? This year we have had a no-growth budget, with very slow growth still ahead of us unless we have some luck such as striking oil somewhere. What is the picture like for a country with a growing population, a population increasing by about 3% per year? There is the threat of ever-increasing unemployment, especially amongst the Black population. This compares pathetically with many developing countries with far fewer material resources than ourselves. What is happening in the meantime? The Government is straining the private sector of the economy by taking an ever larger share of available investment funds. At the last count they accounted for 51% of fixed investment. Even though this budget is aimed at reducing Government expenditure as a share of total expenditure fractionally, the Government is grabbing such a large share of the savings of the nation and insurance companies, pension funds, building societies and banks—I think the hon. the Minister said R780 million …

Do not talk about grabbing.

Of course you are grabbing.

What is happening? The Government scares away foreign investment funds through its own policies and then it pre-empts local investment funds to the detriment of the private sector. The result is going to be even slower growth and even more unemployment. This, in turn, is going to make the task of spreading the benefits of the private enterprise system to other sections of the community even more difficult. However, achieve it we must or we shall never have them willingly prepared to defend the fight for that system. To do this we are going to have to eliminate certain things. We are going to have to eliminate certain ideological measures, certain bureaucratic controls and certain other forms of Government interference which merely impede the general economic process in South Africa. We shall have to launch an in-depth investigation into the optimum development of our human and economic resources. We shall have to bring about an improvement in the living standards of all our people, and we shall have to do this by way of greater growth and productivity. We shall also have to do it by the proper, unimpeded use of our capital and manpower resources. What is that going to include? It is going to mean doing away with job reservation; it is going to mean equal pay for equal work and responsibility; it is going to mean the freer movement of workers to the areas where their skills are in the greatest demand, and it is going to mean acceptance of the system of free and compulsory schooling for everybody and the introduction of extensive job training. With that we must try to see developed a strong class of entrepreneurs or businessmen in all our various communities, where necessary through capital provided by the IDC and other bodies. There will have to be greater industrial and agricultural development of the homelands, if necessary with the aid of private White capital. I believe we can also do much through the revision of our present taxation system. Some of us would like to see the introduction of a consumer council with teeth and, through these measures, the restoration of faith in South Africa.

Many of these matters were raised in the report of the Theron Commission. The fact that they were raised in that report in respect of the Coloured community makes them no less applicable to other communities in South Africa. They are part and parcel of a plan necessary to build up our economy in South Africa.

Having removed grievances and strengthened our economy, the third thing is to seek a constitutional structure of a federal or confederal nature, I believe, in full consultation with the other communities whereby we can live together peacefully and happily.

The time is past where one can take decisions for people. One must take decisions with them. There must be full consultation.

There are certain characteristics such a constitution should have. Firstly, it should recognize the right of individuals and groups to protect their own identity, inter alia, by choosing those with whom they wish to live and associate and by fostering their own religion, language and culture without prejudice to others. Secondly, there must be recognition of the plural nature of our society by ensuring amongst other things the maximum degree of decentralization of power and decision-making to regions and groups. Thirdly, all communities must have the right to full participation at all levels of Government in a federal or confederal system. For the system to work, there will have to be joint decision-making on all matters of common interest. The domination of any one group by others will have to be prevented. Furthermore, a Bill of Rights will have to be introduced to safeguard the position of individuals.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

Sir, I am sorry, but I have no time. Otherwise, I would particularly have liked to answer questions from that hon. member. It will be part and parcel of such a system that the permanence of urban Blacks will be recognized and that full civil rights will be extended to them. It will be important that immediate local self-government should be granted to all urban communities with metropolitan boards to co-ordinate services in the larger urban areas.

We believe that the system of government of the homelands should be developed until the position is reached where they can become independent or autonomous units in a broader federal or confederal system. The development of such a system will not be the work of a day, a week, a month or even a year. I believe it can only come as a result of consultation, of give and take and of a real understanding of each other’s problems. I believe it may take years to work out. It will only come if there is a genuine attempt to understand and meet each other’s problems.

With such a constitution we can tackle the problem of getting rid of those things which make this country a fertile breeding ground for unrest and communism under the present Government. That will require economic upliftment of the underprivileged. It will mean adequate housing. It will mean better welfare services. It will mean the removal of those measures which are an affront to the dignity of people. It will mean the effective strengthening of our defences and our Defence Force by ensuring that all our people become identified with the security of South Africa, a South Africa in which they have a stake and can have something to fight for.

I suggest that these are very reasonable and sensible proposals. They are short-term proposals, admittedly, but there is nothing revolutionary or extremist about them. Even the hon. the Minister of the Interior yesterday confessed in this debate that he would be the last to deny that there are not things in South Africa that should be changed and are being changed. I would hope that all these things which I have outlined were among them. But he asked a question: Would this change the attitude of the Russians? To me this seemed an utterly irrelevant question. What is relevant, is what would be the effect of the change on our own people here in South Africa. If the effect were favourable the Russian threat would be minimized. Later, he spoke of the need for a better understanding of each other’s ideals, of human dignity and the vital role which patriotism could play. I go along with him on those things. But what I want to know is why the hon. the Minister and his party do not go along with me in the proposals which I am putting before the House today.

Because you are committing suicide, that is why!

The hon. gentleman says I am committing suicide. Well, let us look at them. The first concerns the removal of legitimate grievances. I should hope that the Minister felt that legitimate grievances were some of those things which should be changed. Perhaps we disagree as to what are legitimate and what are not, but what could be wrong in having a Council of State to discuss these matters?

I am talking about the political aspect.

What could be wrong in having a Council of State to discuss these grievances and to try to find a solution? What could be wrong with the introduction of formal consultative machinery at all levels where the interests of different communities are concerned?

Then there is the question of discrimination. The Government pays lip service to its removal. It has a Cabinet committee, but all these things are discussed in secret. Why is there no public debate on these matters? Can we not get together and discuss these matters frankly and try to solve them together, with the help of a Council of State, with the help of public debate? It is interesting to note that when there is a difference of opinion as to whether premium bonds for defence purposes do or do not constitute a lottery, and whether or not the system contravenes the Holy Scriptures, there is frank and open discussion the Press. There are delegations to visit the hon. the Prime Minister. Leading churchmen express their views, but when it comes to the removal of discrimination, the major cancer eating into the whole fabric of good relations between our races in South Africa, there is an inexplicable hole in the comer attitude and neither an outward sign of any real progress nor any reasons given why there is not. The hon. the Minister sits there talking to himself and saying that things are being done. What is being done? Nobody sees it. One sees the public taking steps, but not the Government. The Government is the greatest protagonist of discrimination existing in South Africa at the present time.

This is a budget debate. Let us come back to economics for a moment. Everyone agrees that our economic situation is serious. If it is not desperate, it is serious. Everybody knows that Government policy has contributed to the seriousness of the situation and that full and unimpeded use of our capital and manpower would help to improve things. In this respect I think we must ask a question. Are the restrictive provisions of the Physical Planning Act, job reservation and the manner in which the border industry policy is applied really worth what they are costing the economy? Can we really afford to continue with them in present circumstances? I believe there are many members in the ranks of the NP who feel as we do, namely that we cannot afford these things today and that the position is too serious.

Today I have pleaded once again for the development, in full consultation with all other communities, of a constitutional system which will provide for certain essentials. Might I ask what the difference is between my approach and that of the hon. member for Moorreesburg? What did the hon. member for Moorreesburg say yesterday? He wants to see Coloureds and Indians given much greater political rights. Among other things he said—

Surely, that hon. gentleman should be supporting the appeal which I have made here today.

Nobody will support the UP any more.

Oh no, not only will somebody support the UP but before long the hon. member for Waterkloof will be with us. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Moorreesburg also spoke about the task of the Cabinet committee investigating the working of the Westminster system here in South Africa. He said how important it was. Why is at work being done in secret? We on this side of the House have been investigating the working of the Westminster system for years. Why is there not public debate on this issue? Why should we not be discussing desirable changes? Why should other communities not be consulted on this matter? The hon. member for Moorreesburg also pleaded for something else. He pleaded for a commission of inquiry into the lot of the urban Black. He is obviously dissatisfied with the policy of his party in respect of the urban Black, and well he may be. He seems to fear that their presence in our great industrial areas is permanent. I do not fear their permanence. I believe he is right, though perhaps for different reasons. He is right also when he indicates that the present position cannot be allowed to continue. That permanence must be recognized and the urban Black must be treated accordingly economically, socially and politically, or he is going to remain the flash point of trouble in South Africa.

I have referred to these few ideas in order to show that there is a broad spectrum and, I believe, a growing spectrum, of public opinion which transcends party lines, both in Opposition ranks and in fact in Government and Opposition ranks. It accepts that there are certain short term objectives which must be achieved if we are to succeed in uniting all our peoples in a common resolve to defend our country and its private enterprise system against the threats which we face today. That broad spectrum of public opinion needs a political home, a political home which will enable it to be mobilized in the interests of South Africa. That is the need for a new political party in South Africa. That is the need for the new initiative to which we are dedicated, and which is so vital for the future of this country.

Mr. Speaker, for four consecutive days we have been conducting an interesting debate on the budget, a debate which, as usual, covered a very wide field, and in the course of which a number of strange arguments advanced from the Opposition side came very clearly to the fore. A number of strange statements have also been made by hon. members of the Opposition in the course of this debate. I shall dwell on these briefly.

I wish to concede readily to the hon. Leader of the Opposition that he probably finds it difficult to contribute anything original to such a debate at this stage. In fact, while the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, a few of us sat here debating who could perhaps have written his speech for him this time. I think it was perhaps Mr. Theo Gerdener. [Interjections.] On the other hand, one of my own friends sitting near me says he thinks it was perhaps the hon. member for Hillbrow. Another hon. member was of the opinion that it was the hon. member for Umlazi. I leave it at that. [Interjections.] Be that as it may, I wish to confine myself today to some of the statements which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made here.

†The hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke about the economy and about the country being in a mess. It occurred to me that it was an astonishing thing that the hon. Leader of the Opposition, of all people in the country today, should accuse anybody of being in a mess. Surely, if he wants to look around he will have to start with his own party. When in this country’s history have we ever seen a political party in a greater mess than the UP today? [Interjections.] The hon. Leader of the Opposition must therefore be a little bit more careful in the choice of his words and of the target he seeks to attack.

If I understood him correctly, the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that there was talk of nationalizing the insurance business of the country. Did I hear that correctly?

Yes, you heard it correctly.

I find that a completely astonishing statement, and I hope the hon. Leader of the Opposition will take an early opportunity to tell us his authority for that statement. He also talked about the increase in the requirements of the savings institutions to invest in prescribed investments and Government securities. It is a small increase, but he blew this up to such an extent that he said he feared that as a result of this “all institutional business will become Government business”. It is an astonishing statement, which I hope he will seek to explain to the House.

Then, without any particular analysis at all, he simply makes the statement that this budget is going to put up the cost of living.

Are you saying that it will not?

Of course I am saying it will not … [Interjections.] I will tell the House why not.

You told us also that devaluation would not put up the cost of living.

Just give me an opportunity. I did not shout when the hon. Leader of the Opposition was speaking. I will develop my argument, something which the hon. Leader of the Opposition did not do when he made this categorical statement. The first thing that this budget is doing, is holding down the increase in Government expenditure to the absolute minimum. That is conceded by every critic throughout the country as well as overseas. That in itself is, of course, a powerful anti-inflationary factor. That is the first point. Nothing can be more inflationary than an undue increase in Government expenditure at this time. Secondly: Is the hon. member suggesting that our monetary policy is not powerfully anti-inflationary at this moment? This policy has brought down the increase in the money supply from 16% to something like 3% or 4% within a year. Is this not a most powerful anti-inflationary factor in our economy at this moment, taken together with interest rates as they are? What the hon. Leader of the Opposition has done, is simply to look at the increase in certain indirect taxes and simply to say that that would put up the prices and therefore it must be an inflationary budget. However, it is well-known that increases in many indirect taxes can often be deflationary. Has the hon. Leader of the Opposition not read what I concede was an extremely useful analysis in the Financial Mail on this point last year? One finds it very hard to disagree with this analysis. Surely, it is one of the great advantages of an indirect tax, compared with a direct tax, that it gives the person taxed the opportunity to vary his consumption pattern and expenditure. He has got that discretion. Our public are not as obtuse as all that. Of course they will look at this thing and will adjust their spending pattern wherever they can. How can one simply assume that because you have put up the price of a commodity, everybody is going to buy the same quantity as before?

Tell us about white bread!

I can quite understand that the Opposition are very badly rattled at this moment. But there exists no justification to behave like children when we are conducting what I think is an important debate. I am dealing with facts and arguments. For four days I have listened to this debate and I think I have listened with considerable patience to every Opposition member. If the Opposition wants to continue behaving as they do, they are going to make bigger fools of themselves than they already have done. That is all that is going to happen. They are already completely discredited in the eyes of the electorate. So I think there is a considerable obligation on them to try to give the impression that they are responsible.

One can go further. If one looks at the methods of financing in this budget, is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition denying that, predominantly, the financing of this budget is powerfully non-inflationary? One of the most persistent critics of Government financial and economic policies in this country happens to be the economist of Barclays Bank, Dr. Cloete. He happens to be a student of mine. He obtained his doctorate under my supervision. That is an example of academic freedom! [Interjections.] The first and foremost point Dr. Cloete emphasized in this analysis of this budget, was that he said that this budget was deflationary. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition now says that this is an inflationary budget, he owes it to this House to analyse his case very carefully. We can disagree, but let us put our arguments. It is no argument to sit at the back shouting, like the hon. member for Umhlanga is doing. We are accustomed to hearing him in this role every time somebody speaks in the House.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said that this was a no-growth budget. He also said that overseas capital to the country had dried up. Has it? I refute that statement. The fact that I did not budget for this coming year for additional new overseas capital above what is required to redeem various substantial loans, was purely a precautionary and prudent measure. That does not mean to say that there is no capital coming into this country. Hon. members are very gravely misleading themselves and the country when they make statements like that. There is far more confidence on the part of overseas investors who count for something in this world, than hon. members opposite have any conception of. We who work with these things, the hon. the Ministers of Economic Affairs, of Transport, myself and others, have many examples of this every week. However, these are the statements which are thrown about this country and which are aimed at harming this country. They fortunately do not have much influence in responsible investment quarters in the world’s capital markets. There they make absolutely no impression at all. I receive proof of that virtually every week of my life.

*Mr. Speaker, there are a few other arguments which were advanced here, arguments to which I should like to react, but with your permission I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill is intended mainly to rectify two matters. In the first place the Bills of Exchange Act, 1964, provides that notice of dishonour of a Bill, in order to be valid and effectual, must be given within reasonable time and, in the absence of special circumstances, it is deemed that notice is not given within reasonable time unless notice is given or posted on the business day next after the day on which the Bill is dishonoured. If it is intended to protest a Bill, it must also be protested not later than on the business day next after the day on which it is dishonoured. Accordingly, Bills which are presented and dishonoured on a Friday must be noted and protested not later than on the Saturday following. As it is now common practice for business institutions and attorneys’ offices to close on Saturdays, difficulty is generally experienced in having dishonoured Bills noted or protested on Saturdays. It has therefore become necessary to amend the Act so as to provide that where a Bill has to be noted or protested on a Saturday, it may also validly be noted or protested on the Monday following, i.e. the next succeeding business day.

Secondly, it has also become necessary to differentiate between inland and foreign Bills and to abolish the duty to protest an inland Bill. The sole purpose of protesting for non-acceptance or non-payment is to provide written evidence of the fact of dishonour. The need for this evidence is obvious where one or more of the parties to a Bill is resident in a foreign country, but where all parties are resident within the Republic, protest has little, if any, practical value.

Mr. Speaker, this is a measure which we on this side of the House will support. We recognize the fact that fewer and fewer people and businesses are working on Saturdays, and therefore it is becoming more and more difficult to get Bills noted and protested on that day when they are dishonoured on a Friday. Therefore the provision to allow Bills that are dishonoured on a Friday to be protested on the next working day after the Saturday, is reasonable.

The other provision of the Bill, the provision which differentiates between domestic Bills and foreign Bills, is also acceptable. As far as external Bills are concerned, it will expedite the whole procedure in respect of dishonoured Bills if they do not have to be protested as they have in the past. Therefore we shall support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that this legislation is supported by the Opposition. It is a very short piece of legislation and makes provision for a few necessary matters. I do not want to say anything about Bills of exchange. I remember in the days when I was still a student that our professor said when we had to study Bills of exchange: “We now come to Bills of exchange, I never knew it; you will never know it, and so we will just pass it over.” Therefore I do not want to assume to myself the right to say too much in regard to Bills of exchange. The provision here is, in brief, that the protesting of an inland Bill because of its non-acceptance of non-payment will no longer be imperative and that this provision will only apply in the case of foreign Bills. It is a sensible measure. However, this can still be done. There is nothing to prevent it and circumstances may arise which make it necessary to follow this procedure. The measure will definitely simplify claims that are lodged. The procedure that is followed at the moment is to a large extent out of date and what is more, very complicated.

The other provision in the Bill is that it does not have to be presented to a drawee where it is payable to another address after having been protested. It was sometimes difficult to do so. It was a waste of time and could prejudice the position of the claimant.

The last provision is purely in connection with protesting and the serving of a notice after a Saturday as a result of the fact that attorney’s offices and other persons and bodies including banks, close early on Saturdays and are sometimes closed completely. Therefore I am pleased to be able to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when I saw on the Order Paper that there was to be an amendment to the Bills of Exchange Act I was hopeful that many of the archaic provisions which are in that Act would be dealt with and that many of the problems that still exist in regard to Bills of exchange would be attended to. On seeing the Bill, however, I regretfully found that it was something of a damp squib, in that it really deals with relatively unimportant matters about which there can be no dispute. We certainly do not dispute that the two amendments in clauses 2 and 4 of the Bill are basic, and should therefore be effected. But there are more important matters regarding Bills of exchange which need attention. Take for example the situation which has arisen out of the most recent Appellate Division case dealing with cheques marked “Not transferable”. That is a matter of limiting the types of crossings of cheques and it is something that the law advisers might well give attention to. In addition, there are many provisions in our Bills of exchange legislation which are archaic, which are hopelessly out of date and which need to be brought into line with modern concepts. So, while we support this Bill, I do appeal to the hon. the Minister to give attention to a complete revision of the Bills of Exchange Act so that we can get a more modern piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the original Act had a slightly more difficult passage in 1964 than the present Bill is having. This is so for obvious reasons. Before 1964 every province had different laws in regard to Bills of exchange. Before the Act was passed, one of the provinces, Natal, had a provision which read as follows—

In other words, Bills that came from the Cape Province, the Orange Free State or from the Transvaal were regarded as foreign Bills in Natal. I presume that was one of the occasions when the Natal Stand came into play. In 1964 the reasonable men from Natal decided to drop the Natal Stand and accepted the Act which was passed then. So, in future I am sure they will also drop the Natal Stand.

Have you ever been to Natal?

Very often. But that hon. member is not representative of Natal. Bills of exchange are internationally an accepted method of dealing with financial transactions in trade and commerce. There is one law on the Statute Book to ensure the smooth running of internal and external trade. That is the Bills of Exchange Act. We in these benches accept that these amendments, although they do not go far enough, are improvements. We believe that the giving of notice of dishonour and protesting of a Bill also on the next succeeding business day instead of a Saturday, is an improvement. In the circumstances we will not oppose the Bill.

Mr Speaker, I am just rising to thank hon. members on either side of the House for their support of the measure. I listened carefully to the point raised by the hon. member for Walmer and the hon. member for Yeoville. We of course have a technical committee in regard to these matters and we are always prepared to refer any representations we receive to that committee for thorough study and investigation and recommendation. I will also do it in this case.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill proposes to amend several statutory provisions relating to the Railways. The implications of the various amendments are set out in the explanatory memorandum which has been tabled.

Clauses 1(a) and (c), 5 to 13 and 15 to 17 deal with the same facet of the department’s activities, so I shall discuss them together.

To enable the Railways to continue to play an important part as a public transportation enterprise in a sophisticated market which has become more and more competitive, it is essential to adjust some of its commercial activities which have been practised unchanged for more than half a century.

Accordingly, it has been decided to modernize and adapt to present-day requirements and practices especially those facets of the Administration’s activities which concern the general public most closely, i.e. the conditions of transportation, the liability of the Administration and the handling of claims. In order to ensure that the Administration keeps up with the systems of other modern Western railways, various overseas railways were questioned about the course of action followed by them. It was ascertained that most modern railways already apply centralization and specialization as the only well-tried system for the handling of claims and that great attention was paid to the cost aspect in the processing of claims.

A further very important fact which came to light was that no railway organization was prepared to accept unlimited liability for the transportation of goods. Most railways impose a specific restriction on the gross weight of a consignment. However, if a consignor does require greater liability to be accepted, this can be arranged upon payment of a premium on the railage.

A completely new system for dealing with claims is being envisaged for the S.A. Railways. This system is intended to deal with claims in an equitable way, as scientifically as possible, with a minimum of delay and a minimum of processing costs.

The Railways will in future impose a restriction on its liability and accept liability for a market value of goods up to a maximum amount of R5 per kilogram, calculated on the gross weight of the goods—excluding animals and birds—and R2 per kilogram calculated on the gross weight of an animal or a bird. Consignors will still be entitled to negotiate the acceptance of greater liability upon payment of a premium. It is our considered opinion that the above-mentioned maximums represent a fair and realistic average.

In order to put the new system into practice, certain basic changes to the existing legislation are essential. The changes that are being envisaged are mainly aimed at bringing the methods and practices of the Railways into line with modern business practices and to provide a system which is simple and practicable. It is also intended to provide a clear definition of the conditions of transportation and of the Administration’s liability as a carrier. Since the introduction of the Bill, representations have been received from the Association of Chambers of Commerce in connection with the time allowed for the submission of claims for the loss of a part of a consignment of goods or for damage suffered by or delays experienced in respect of goods accepted for conveyance. In order to meet the objections, I am prepared to extend the period of time to 30 days in these cases, and I shall move the necessary amendment in the Committee Stage.

I shall now discuss the remaining clauses briefly. The amendments proposed in clauses 1(b) and 2 are aimed at eliminating a defect in the existing legislation in connection with powers of the Administration concerning the S.A. Airways. Although the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, authorizes the Railways Administration to purchase, control, manage and exploit aircraft for the conveyance of persons and goods, the Act contains no definition of “South African Airways”. This deficiency causes problems, especially because the private sector, mainly in the case of lawsuits, does not realize the connection between the S.A. Airways and the S.A. Railways, particularly as far as the powers of the Administration are concerned. The proposed amendments will remove any misunderstanding and will clarify the matter beyond any doubt.

The amendment in clause 3 introduces steps which will reduce the noise caused by the whistles and hooters of locomotives, especially those of diesel and electric locomotives. There is no really satisfactory solution, short of completely eliminating level crossings, to the contradictory requirements of giving a sufficient warning at unguarded level crossings without allowing the noise to become a nuisance. As hon. members will realize, it is not possible to eliminate all level crossings, and it is being proposed that the whistles and hooters of locomotives be used for only a minimum of three seconds at crossings and that the use of whistles and hooters be compulsory only between the hours of 05h00 and 23h00. I trust that this step will meet with general approval.

†I shall now deal with clause 4. All fines, except those which comprise revenue recoveries, imposed in respect of transgressions of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, or the regulations framed thereunder, are presently credited to the State Revenue Fund. However, bearing in mind that the transgressions for which such fines are imposed are essentially peculiar to the business of the Railways and that the Railways employ a police force at considerable cost to enforce law and order, it is proposed to allocate such fines to the Railway and Harbour Fund. The approval of the Treasury has been obtained for this amendment.

The amendment envisaged in clause 14 is aimed at making assault on a member of the S.A. Railways Police Force in the exercise of his powers or execution of his duties punishable by imprisonment without the option of a fine; wilful interference with the uniform or equipment of a member of the force in the execution of his duties will likewise be a punishable offence. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to bring the legislation applicable to the S.A. Railways Police Force in this respect in line with draft legislation which has been introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Police.

I now come to clause 18. As a result of the termination of South Africa’s membership of the British Commonwealth, the measure of preference enjoyed by citizens of a Commonwealth country or of the Republic of Ireland over other aliens in that they could be appointed in a temporary or permanent capacity in the Railway service, has lapsed; the purpose of this clause is to delete the proviso to section 4(1) of Act 22 of 1960.

In regard to clause 19, it is desired to explain that in the event of the services of a servant in permanent employment being dispensed with prior to superannuation due to a reduction in or reorganization of staff, such servant is entitled to receive from Railway revenue a gratuity or pension benefits equal to the benefits he would be entitled to had he retired owing to ill-health. A member of the new Superannuation Fund in permanent employment whose services are terminated by mutual agreement in terms of section 12A of the Railways and Harbours Service Act, 1960, is treated likewise.

The pension benefits comprise a cash sum and an annuity; the annuity is paid out of revenue and only after attainment of the age fixed for superannuation is a servant’s annuity borne by the Superannuation Fund.

In view of the fact that the Administration contributes towards the financial stability of the Superannuation Fund and bearing in mind that the fund retains the pension contributions of the member concerned, it is not logical that the administration should be charged out of revenue with contribution to the fund as well as gratuities granted in terms of the Service Act, without any claim being made upon the fund. The purpose of the proposed amendment is, therefore, to make provision for the appointment between revenue and the new Superannuation Fund of the gratuity or the cash sum payable to a servant whose services are prematurely dispensed with on the grounds of reduction in or reorganization of staff or by mutual agreement.

Clause 21 concerns the construction of the railway line between Empangeni and Richards Bay. Although the Railway Construction Act, 1968 (Act No. 38 of 1968), provided for the construction of a railway line approximately 18 km long at a cost of approximately R3 750 000, there was no clarity initially as to how the detail planning of Richards Bay and vicinity would develop. The new line was completed up to a distance of approximately 13 km and opened for traffic on 3 August 1970. The construction of the remainder of the line was left in abeyance until required at a later stage. However, as the planning of the Richards Bay complex progressed, it became evident that the extension of the railway line as originally provided for, would not fit in with the detail planning of the complex. Arrangements have been made for the rail network in the harbour area to link up with the new line at approximately 12 km and consequently the total length of the line from Empangeni to Richards Bay will be some 13 km only.

Mr. Speaker, this omnibus Bill consists of some 23 clauses and I should like to say at the outset that we on this side of the House do not plan to oppose this Bill. We find that most of these clauses are of a minor administrative nature which we can easily accept. However, there are six clauses to which we should like to refer and possibly to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. Two of my colleagues will speak on a number of these clauses, but the first clause on which I should like to speak is clause 3 to which the hon. the Minister has already referred, viz. the clause which deals with the use of whistles as a warning device at level crossings. We sympathize with the Administration in this regard because I think it is faced in this respect with conflicting interests. First of all, I think there is the primary interest, viz. the safety of the users of a level crossing. Then there is the secondary interest, viz. the inconvenience which the blasting of hooters by locomotives causes to residents in the area, especially when these hooters are sounded at night. We appreciate that legal disputes can and do arise in the event of level crossing accidents. As at the present time, there is no legislation governing the legal responsibility of the Railways in respect of audible warnings at level crossings. Rather, at present there are only Railways instructions to their employees that there should be two blasts on the hooter at predetermined distances from the crossing.

One can appreciate the dilemma of the Railways and of its employees in respect of just how much warning they should give at level crossings, especially in built up urban areas, and particularly at night. Should the driver of a locomotive fail to use his locomotive hooter when approaching a level crossing, out of sympathy for local residents— and we hear an awful lot about this, those of us who have constituencies where there are large railway installations—and then become involved in an accident, the question then arises as to who is to blame. Therefore, we support this clause in principle, which lays down the Railways’ legal responsibility with respect to the minimum level crossing warning. However, in order to appease the local residents—I believe this is one of the main reasons for this legislation—I think it must be accepted now that there will not be audible warnings at level crossings between the hours of 11 p.m. and one minute before 5 o’clock in the morning.

There need not be.

Yes, there need not be. That is correct. I believe that this now places the users of level crossings in rather a vulnerable position in that an approaching train now need not give this warning blast on its hooter. I sincerely hope that the Press, along with the Railways, will give the required amount of publicity to this fact. In the past it used to be said that when one approaches a railway level crossing one must look and listen. I believe in future we should teach our children to slow down and look, and not necessarily rely on their ears when approaching a level crossing.

At this stage, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether more use could not be made of electric warning lights at level crossings. I know they do exist, but where electricity is available, possibly greater use could be made of electric lights. Finally, on this particular clause, I would like the hon. the Minister to clarify the exact meaning of the proposed new section 8A(3), which says—

Does this only refer to level crossings, or does it also refer to the general usage of a hooter in the normal carrying out of its duties by the Railways? I put this now, rather than in the Committee Stage, because I would like the hon. the Minister to explain this to us. Should he not satisfy us, we intend to move an amendment at Committee Stage. If this does apply, for argument’s sake, to shunting in marshalling yards such as those at Congella, I am afraid we cannot accept it. It is known that employees of the Railways do use the hooters of their locomotives to communicate with one another in these marshalling yards. In some instances this can cause an awful lot of inconvenience to local residents. If it is the intention that this subsection should apply to the normal duties, then I am afraid—as I have already said—that we cannot accept it. I do not believe that it would be wise or responsible to legalize actions on the part of employees of the Railways, resulting possibly from their impatience or irritation with their fellow-workers, which can, I believe, only be described as inconsiderate in the light of sleeping local residents.

I would like to refer now to clause 4, which deals with the fines that can be imposed as a result of offences committed on the Administration’s properties. As the hon. the Minister has said, this was formerly credited to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, but will now go to the Railways and Harbours Fund. We accept this. We know that the Railways provide many social services at uneconomic costs. Therefore, we welcome this further source of revenue, however small it might be in relation to the total Railway budget.

In clause 8 we find that in the future it will be an offence for a person to bring or take with him upon a railway a loaded fire-arm, dangerous goods or extremely dangerous goods. If he is found guilty of this offence he may face a fine of up to R800 or two years’ imprisonment or both. He can also have the goods confiscated or destroyed. In times such as South Africa is facing at the moment we agree that it is in the interests of not only the public, but also the Railways’ employees, that this clause be approved. However, on a point of clarification I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this particular clause applies to a weapon which has been separated from its loaded magazine. I ask this question because I think it is known that people do carry weapons in everyday life. I believe there was an article in a newspaper recently which claimed that a large number of people carry weapons. The hon. the Minister may also be alarmed to know that when my daughter came down to Cape Town by air just before the Easter recess she sat next to a woman who, during the course of conversation, opened a bag she had there and showed my daughter the pistol that she was carrying. My poor daughter expected a hijack attempt at any moment. She got off the plane very concerned about it and so was I. If a person can carry a loaded pistol—I assume that it was loaded—on an aircraft, I am quite sure that there are a lot of people who will be carrying them on the railways. I wonder whether the general public will be fully informed on the fact that after this legislation is promulgated it will be an offence to carry a loaded weapon on the railways. Therefore, I ask the hon. the Minister to ensure through his department and its public relations section that the public are aware of this legislation.

Our agriculture spokesman will speak about clauses 13 and 15, and our spokesman on justice will refer to clause 14. As a result of this there may be some amendments forthcoming. In conclusion I would just like to say that we will not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was with appreciation that we took note of the attitude of the Opposition in respect of the Bill. Basically there is one qualification that applies throughout the Bill and that is that it is in all respects, with regard to all clauses, a rationalization which has long been necessary. I refer specifically to the question of the fines on Railway properties, which has been discussed for years, inter alia in the Select Committee. We are very grateful that this arrangement has now been made interdepartmentally and that the Treasury has agreed that such fines will accrue to the Railways. I hope and trust that it will also be retrospective, thus providing the Railways with quite a tidy nest egg.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti with respect of the clause which deals with the use of locomotive whistles. This is of course a very intricate and difficult situation. Some trains approach the level crossings at a speed of 60 km per hour while others do so at 80 km per hour, with the result that the whistle differs in length and also irritation. This is of special importance if it causes a disturbance and we are therefore very grateful for the co-operation of the legal advisers in minimizing this as far as is practicable. I hope and trust that we shall continue to learn from experience and that if further limitations in this connection should be imposed, they will follow in time.

A further aspect of the legislation is that whereas formerly the Railways accepted unlimited liability in respect of claims, a fixed basis of limited liability is now being introduced. That is also a positive step in the right direction. I think it will be to the benefit of all the parties concerned. In future the market value of goods transported by the Railways will serve as a basis for the payment of claims in this respect, with a maximum limitation of R5 per kg. Animals and birds are obviously excluded from this. In the case of animals and birds the market value has been limited to a maximum of R2 per kg. In all those cases where an owner is of the opinion that the value of his goods or articles is higher than the maximum limitation stipulated by this Bill, he is of course free to obtain additional cover by way of insurance. Once again this is a rational accommodation which should, in my opinion, satisfy all parties.

I also took note with special appreciation of the attitude to grass fires, viz. to render this procedure, too, more streamlined in the sense that all such applications will in future be handled by the head office and that claim forms will be sent to the head office where they will immediately be attended to within the short period of 14 days. We shall get more general and more standardized norms in this regard, norms which will be applied in all these cases. I believe that this is also a service to the public which is due to the initiative of the Railways and which should be welcomed universally.

The question of the airways and the purchase of aircraft has already been explained and I think that it is self-explanatory.

With regard to assault on members of the Railways Police or damaging their property or uniforms, this Bill is, in my opinion, a very logical step in the right direction, especially in these times, to put the respect, status and prestige of these officials in the correct perspective and also to indemnify them against unnecessary loss in the form of physical injury to their person and their property such as their uniforms and other possessions. We took note of this with great appreciation. It is also a rational approach in the right direction, an approach which testifies to a progressive approach on the part of the management of the Railways.

With regard to appointments in the Railways, the qualification of citizenship of the Republic of South Africa seems to me completely logical. After the withdrawal of the Republic from the Commonwealth in 1961, it is merely a rectification of a position which has already existed in practice for a number of years. As regards the compensation gratuity to staff members who retire from service earlier due to certain circumstances and for certain reasons, this, too, is merely a matter of an internal administrative arrangement. Whereas the revenue fund has till now assumed nearly all responsibility in this regard, the pension fund, the fund to which, in point of fact, officials chiefly contribute with a view to this benefit and this convenience, will in future take its rightful share and will meet its obligations in respect of compensation in the cases already referred to. The question of the railway line between Empangeni and Richards Bay—clause 21—has already been explained by the hon. the Minister. The aspects involved are self-evident and follow logically. We also took note with appreciation of the saving in this regard as a result of this arrangement and are pleased to rectify the situation in parliament. It is with great pleasure and gratification that we wish to convey our gratitude to the hon. the Minister for the rationalization which took place in this respect. It is also welcomed by the public and by everyone who takes an interest in the administration of the Railways.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is of nature largely a Committee Stage Bill, because it covers a diversity of different subjects. There are, however, one or two matters that I would like to urge upon the hon. the Minister at this stage. Like the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, I am a bit worried about the provision in clause 3 concerning the legal responsibilities of the Railways in regard to hooting of unprotected level crossing. I agree that the Railways finds itself in a difficult situation, because one has to bear in mind the interest of people who suffer from disturbances created by the Railways. I am pretty sure that the hon. member for Walmer, for example, will be on his feet probably supporting this, because I know that the residents of Walmer have been objecting against the noise made by the trains for a long time. While agreeing that warning responsibilities should be determined, I am not sure whether three seconds is long enough. According to the explanatory memorandum we see that the SABS is not happy either that this is adequate warning time. We are faced with an unpleasant decision in this regard, but I think we should err rather on the side of discomfort rather than having the possibility of serious accidents taking place.

At the same time we should determine what the Railway’s responsibilities should be and make sure that adequate warning is given. I am not sure whether three seconds is adequate. I have had experience at a particular level crossing in the eastern Transvaal where I have nearly been run down on a couple of occasions despite the fact that I had stopped, looked, listened and apart from the fact that hooters had evidently been sounded. The hooters, however, had been sounded 10 to 15 seconds before the arrival of the train and it is quite impossible from that distance to determine whether a train is on its way. It is a very dangerous and isolated level crossing and one takes one’s life in one’s hands if one attempts crossing it at night even at present and I am nervous merely thinking that if a three second warning is given, a crossing of this nature would become even more dangerous.

Like the hon. member for Amanzimtoti I have wondered about the provisions of subsection (3) of the Bill. I should like to know whether a blanket indemnity for whistling and hooting is being given or whether the regulations apply to level crossings only. I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to this when he answers to the debate. The question of cutting out all whistling between 11 o’clock at night and 5 o’clock in the morning is a very difficult matter indeed. It is the duty of the Administration to make absolutely certain that this is well publicized, that the crossings are adequately marked and that people well understand well before the time that they are not entitled to receive any warning between those hours. It is a worrying clause and is not entirely satisfactory. I cannot think of an entirely satisfactory answer. But it is incumbent on the Administration to do what they can. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti suggested warning lights. If such a system could be implemented, I should be interested to know what the cost of instituting warning lights would be in areas where electricity is available. I have no doubt that the Railways Administration has already gone into the matter.

The other clause I want to talk about is clause 14, which deals with the assault on members of the S.A. Railway Police Force. I am not sure that I agree with the provisions of this clause in so far that I do not believe it to be necessary that assault should be punishable by imprisonment without the option of a fine. I think everybody agrees with the hon. member for Witwatersberg that it is necessary that the public should be made well aware of the necessity to respect a police uniform.

I do not agree, however, that the discretion of the courts should be removed in a matter of this nature. After all, if one knocks off a policeman’s hat or one punches him gently on the arm, one is technically assaulting that man. I do not think that it is necessary that this should be punishable by imprisonment without the option of a fine. The hon. the Minister justifies this by saying, that in the projected Police Amendment Bill this is going to become standard practice. However, this still does not justify it and we are going to object to it in that Bill as we feel that the discretion of the court should be retained. I would like to hear whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to justify the amendment by referring to cases of disrespect and assault of railway policemen. Apart from those two clauses I think the other matters that should be raised will best be dealt with in the Committee Stage. However, I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister in regard to those two matters.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill introduces a few necessary amendments and it seems to me as if the Opposition in general accepts the basic principles contained herein, although they want to propose certain amendments in the Committee Stage. I should like to turn to one of the amendments of which notice has already been given on the Order Paper. I refer to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mooi River in respect of clause 13. It is appreciated that this compensation clause is now being amended in the way suggested, namely that a fixed maximum tariff for cattle, horses, mules, pigs, ostriches, sheep, goats or donkeys is no longer fixed but that…

Is the hon. member now discussing an amendment which appears on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker, I am discussing the Second Reading of the Bill and the proposed amendments which have been indicated.

Order! The hon. member cannot refer to the amendments. That can be done in the Committee Stage.

Very well, Mr. Speaker. In general the proposal is that there should no longer be a fixed tariff for individual kinds of livestock laid down by the Act, a good measure. If fixed tariffs are laid down by the Act, the changing economic circumstances always have to be taken into account and whenever the circumstances change it will be necessary to amend the Act. This clause, however, stipulates that it will take place by way of regulation.

The regulation which the hon. the Minister has already mentioned, namely that as far as general goods are concerned a maximum compensation of R5 per kilogram will apply and that in the case of livestock the maximum compensation will be R2 per kilogram, is not a provision laid down in the Bill as such. It is, however, a regulation which will accompany the Act. I think that it is much easier to amend regulations than to amend an Act. It is thus an aspect which can be welcomed. The figures which the hon. Minister indicated can, in general, be regarded as reasonable, taking into account today’s prices, but they are also reasonable because the amounts have not been arbitrarily determined. The amounts were determined in consultation with various bodies. I refer not only to the South African Agricultural Union, but also to Assocom and other organizations which deal with the determining of the prices of certain goods. Here we are dealing with compensation for damage to or loss of goods and livestock. There is, however, one aspect which I should like to have cleared up. If cattle are run over and killed, for example, without any negligence on the part of the owner, for instance on the farmer’s land, a maximum amount is proposed under the regulations. For normal cattle this maximum figure of R2 per kilogram is more than sufficient, calculated at today’s market values. At the current market value a farmer can expect about 55 cents per kilogram live mass for cattle. Normally, therefore, a maximum of R2 per kilogram is more than sufficient. However, if a farmer transports his cattle by train, he can cover himself by means of an additional premium tariff or additional insurance, for instance in the case of a stud bull which is worth more than R2 per kilogram, live mass. But what would happen if a stud bull were killed at a railway crossing on the farmer’s land, without any negligence on the part of the farmer? How can this farmer be compensated if the value is more than R2 per kilogram because there is no question of the farmer being insured by way of a premium tariff? I should like to have the necessary information from the hon. Minister. I am thinking of the overall necessity for consultation. The Railways probably also accept that it is desirable for there to be consultation about tariffs from time to time, but I think that the Railways are also aware of the fact that there is more than one body which should be consulted. It is not only livestock that is at issue, and that is why it is undesirable to stipulate in a regulation that only the South African Agricultural Union should be consulted. There are other bodies which should be consulted about other goods apart from livestock. To name all those bodies in legislation of this nature would, in my opinion, have a restrictive effect on the general provisions deemed necessary by the Railways from time to time.

With regard to the changes in respect of warning signals at level crossings, I think that the Railways are also of the opinion that they should at all times do everything in their power to ensure safety wherever possible, and on the other hand, to eliminate unnecessary disturbance. I believe that the Railways consciously strives to eliminate level crossings wherever practicable and also as quickly as possible. I also consider it improbable that the Railways should wilfully neglect their duties in this respect.

I know that the Railways went so far as to discuss the reduction of noise, etc., dealt with in clause 3, about which opinions have been advanced, with the South African Bureau of Standards with a view to co-ordinating measures. Steps were not simply taken arbitrarily. The necessary steps were taken after thorough discussion and that is why, in my opinion, it is quite advisable that we accept the clause as it is, unless it can be scientifically proved that this clause does not comply with the necessary requirements.

In general, I think the amendments proposed here enjoy, for the most part, the support of all members of both sides of the House and that is why it is a pleasure to lend them my support.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise certain matters with regard to clauses 13 and 15 which deal with compensation. The hon. the Minister quite correctly said that the Administration here introduces a totally new approach to the question of compensation for livestock killed in transit. I believe the whole system is designed to facilitate the settlement of claims and to make it easier for farmers to establish whether they have been prejudiced and to recover losses from the Railways Administration. There are a couple of matters which do concern me however. In the White Paper it is stated that the maximum amount of R2 per kg is accepted by the Administration as being a reasonable amount in relation to livestock and poultry and other birds. The proposed new subsection (5) provides that—

I imagine that the amount of R2 per kg will be the amount prescribed by regulation. However, this is a maximum amount. As I see it, the intention of the Administration in introducing that amount is to limit the sizes of claims in an attempt to ensure that a claim made by an owner of stock who has been injuriously affected by stock of his being killed on the Railways will be reasonable.

However, let us take the case of an animal injured in transit where that animal has a live weight, of say, 800 lb. or approximately 400 kilos. The Railways are prepared to concede that the value of the animal may be a maximum of R2 per kg. That will mean that an animal can be valued at R800. In the case of an ordinary animal which is being sent to market, I think that that is considerably in excess of what its market value would be at the abattoir. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what procedure is going to be adopted to establish what the animal was really worth. Knowing farmers the way I do and the way the hon. the Minister knows them, it is going to be very difficult to find a single farmer who will not say that his animal is worth the absolute maximum. I am just wondering whether the Administration has not placed a burden on itself in this regard. However, I accept the idea that there should be a limit. We support this idea because it will facilitate the settlement of claims.

I have given notice on the Order Paper of an amendment I intend moving in the Committee Stage. At this point in time I merely wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will be prepared in his reply to the Second Reading debate to indicate his attitude towards my amendment. We have moved similar amendments on other occasions and have been told that the department concerned could not accept it because of the necessity of consulting the Agricultural Union, the Chamber of Industries, the Chamber of Commerce and everyone else one can think of. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I do not accept that as being a valid argument in this particular case. He is taking powers upon himself to fix a maximum by regulation. In my opinion a maximum of R2 per kg is generous. I do not think he will be changing this maximum every five minutes. For the hon. the Minister to accept that the agricultural community through the Agricultural Union should be consulted when any change is contemplated is a very reasonable request. I know he will consult them. When he intends changing this, he will quite obviously consult with the bodies concerned. However, for the protection of the farming community I should like to see this written into the Act so that the farming community will know that they will be automatically consulted whenever it is being considered to change the amount prescribed by regulation.

As regards clause 15, I see the hon. the Minister is going to move an amendment to it himself. His amendment is to change the provision for 14 days in line 49 on page 12 to 30 days in the case of a part consignment of livestock which has been damaged, hurt or whatever in transit. To begin with, this struck us as a complete anomaly that where there is a part of a consignment which has been damaged and on which a claim is going to be made, the period should be 14 days, whereas in a case where a whole consignment, for example a whole truck load of animals is killed, one would then have a claim and the period allowed would be 60 days. It would seem to me that in view of the fact that it has to be established from a part of a consignment which animals are damaged, which can be marketed, whether they can be marketed for a price which is less than the price which they would have reached under normal circumstances, and other such difficulties, considerably more investigation will have to be made than if the department could be informed that an entire consignment of animals has been killed and that, therefore, a claim of Rx is being made, based on so much per head, which would obviously have to be based on the weight of the animals concerned. I therefore welcome the provision which the hon. the Minister is now making for increasing that period from 14 to 30 days. This is something which we on this side of the House accept. We were in fact proposing that it should go further.

That is not for livestock.

May I then ask the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the Second Reading, to state what procedure will be followed in the case of livestock where only part of the consignment is damaged and where one will have to submit a claim for part of the consignment rather than for the whole consignment which is killed in transit?

We support the Second Reading. I shall be interested to hear from the hon. the Minister his reaction to the amendment which I intend moving in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to confine myself to the liability of the Administration for compensation in respect of livestock. It has been and still is one of the major points of difficulty that we farmers experience. The compensation in respect of livestock has not kept pace with the increase in the value of livestock in past years. To effect an amendment to the Act each time an adjustment has to be made, is an unnecessarily cumbersome procedure. Therefore we welcome the fact that it can be done by regulation. At the moment the maximum amount which can be paid for cattle amounts to R154 per head, for a mule and a horse R70, for a pig R26, for an ostrich R24, for a sheep and a goat R17 and for a donkey R8. Although the liability of the Administration for compensation will be limited, it does provide for liability to be accepted for the market value of the livestock with a maximum of R2 per kilogram live weight. I think this is where the hon. member for Mooi River may not have calculated entirely correctly. If one calculates this maximum of R2 per kg in terms of the mass of an animal, it means that the maximum mass at the moment for a head of cattle is only 77 kg; in other words, a calf. For a sheep it is only 8,5 kg; in other words, a lamb. If we assume that the average mass of one head of cattle is 400 kg or even more, and that of a sheep 50 kg and sometimes even more than that, it is very clear how much assistance is already being afforded the farmers by this amendment to the Act. In other words, to me this maximum represents a realistic average and it can be of great benefit to the owner of livestock. In the case where, as the hon. member for Klip River has already said, the market value of livestock exceeds the maximum amount of the Administration’s liability, the consignor can recover the true value of the livestock on payment of a prescribed premium. There is only one thing that worries me. Where a valuable stud animal is killed or injured by a train on a railway line, and there is no possibility of a prescribed premium, the Railways will also have to pay attention to this. Therefore I want to request that where it can be proved beyond all doubt in the first place that it really was a valuable stud animal, and secondly, that the owner was not negligent, consideration be given not only to payment of this maximum amount in respect of such a valuable stud animal, according to the tariff of R2 per kg. but according to the true value of such a stud animal. Therefore we welcome and support this amendment and we want to express our gratitude and appreciation towards the hon. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, this is a most important piece of legislation. It deals with various matters. Amongst others, it places the power of the Administration, in so far as the S.A. Airways are concerned, beyond any doubt whatsoever. This legislation also deals with the revision of claims. Amongst others, this legislation, I notice, also deals with—in clause 21—the building of the railway line from Empangeni to Richards Bay. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that it now mentions the cost of building eight miles of railway track at the cost which originally applied for building a track of 11 miles. I hope he has gone into the question of these costs very carefully, because, as I have said, it now costs the same to build eight miles of railway track than it originally cost to build 11 miles of railway track.

In principle we do not oppose this Bill, but there are certain matters which, as the hon. the Minister knows, are close to my heart. I want to raise them at this stage. I hope that perhaps this Bill will stand over until a later stage—possibly after the weekend—and I hope that the hon. the Minister may have a change of heart and assist us in this problem that we have.

*Mr. Speaker, this is a very important piece of legislation. If I may put it that way, I want to say that it is very important both for myself and for the hon. the Minister. We have a mutual problem in connection with the use of hooters by diesel locomotives. I was elected a member of this House in April 1974. More or less from the day that I was elected, I have been flooded by innumerable complaints from the ratepayers in my constituency, complaints in connection with the noise of the hooters of diesel locomotives which run through Walmer and other constituencies. I have pestered the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration very often. I know that they have tried to find solutions, overseas as well as here in South Africa, to this problem. However, up till now there has been no proper solution. But there is at least a partial solution.

I must add that although I pestered the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration very often, I always had a very courteous and friendly reception. They certainly did their best to assist me to the best of their ability. Some people who are the victims of the noise of those hooters, state that their nerves can no longer stand it. According to them, it is detrimental to their health and has also reduced the value of their properties. They are therefore of the opinion that something concrete should be done about this matter. The hon. the Minister has intimated that he would like to solve the problem. Today he has come to light with clause 3 of this Bill. The ratepayers’ association of Lorraine, however, believe that this does not really offer a solution to the problem.

In all fairness I have to convey the feelings of those ratepayers—because they are the people who have been complaining all these years about this matter—to the House today. If the hon. Minister gives his permission, I should like to read from a letter which was really addressed to him. The letter was written to the hon. Minister by the Ratepayers Association of Lorraine, and is dated 8 March 1977. It reads as follows—

I can only add here that I think the Minister will instruct the Railway staff in this respect.

I see that the hon. the Minister is laughing a little. I think he agrees with me.

I should like to make an appeal to the hon. Minister to comply with the request of the ratepayers of Lorraine, Port Elizabeth. The hon. Minister is aware of the letter and the annexure and is therefore aware of its full contents.

The proposed new section 8A(3) has been added to ensure that one cannot take the Administration to court as a result of the noise of a whistle, siren or hooter of a train. I do not like clause 3 at all, and we should not like to support it. I think it is a clause with which to thwart the public.

†This clause seeks to bar court cases against the Administration on the grounds of nuisance. In all fairness, this clause should be deleted. An advocate’s opinion was obtained in this matter and he came to the conclusion that the people had a reasonable prospect of success, had they taken the Administration to court in this matter and had they proceeded against the Railways. The proposed new section 8A(3) is so inherently unfair that the hon. the Minister should have no hesitation whatsoever in agreeing to the deletion of it. Despite the fact that the people of Port Elizabeth had certain legal rights they have tried to solve their problems by negotiations with the hon. the Minister and the Administration and I think that it would be patently unfair at this stage to take away the legal rights that exist at present in so far as those people and all the people throughout South Africa are concerned. In the proposed new section 8A(2) it is indicated that between 23h01 and 04h59 people may get relief from the nuisance of horn blowing. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will tell us whether firm instructions will go out in this regard to the people working on the Railways to ensure that, in fact, the maximum benefit is derived from this particular subsection. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give the Lorraine Ratepayers of Port Elizabeth and other people throughout the Republic of South Africa the opportunity by agreeing to certain amendments that we have placed on the Order Paper. On behalf of the people of Port Elizabeth I would like to say: “Let us grab the hooter by the horns and solve this problem as one of urgency.”

Mr. Speaker, I shall begin by discussing the matter the hon. member for Walmer has just raised. That is, the inconvenience caused by the whistles, hooters or sirens of the Railways. It is true that during the past few years I have received many representations from various quarters as a result of the noise caused by diesel locomotives in particular. The most important, or rather, most representations came, inter alia, from Windhoek and the Port Elizabeth area, where the constituency of the hon. member for Walmer is situated. In the process, we attempted to do whatever we possibly could but it is true— and I think hon. members will have to have a little sympathy for me—that the Railways are expected to provide services 24 hours per day and seven days a week. It is impossible for the services the Railways provide to take place without any noise. We cannot operate without causing a certain amount of noise.

Safety is an important factor at level crossings. In this regard we must ask ourselves how much of a warning ought to be given at level crossings. I should like to explain what our thoughts on this matter are. I asked the Railways’ legal draftsmen to investigate the possibility of amending the legislation to the effect that a driver would give no indication whatsoever, either by hooter or by whistle, when a train was approaching a level crossing. I asked myself whether or not one ought to impress upon the public that whenever a person approaches a level crossing in a motor car or crosses it on foot, the responsibility lies with him or her at all times to ensure that there is no danger before crossing the level crossing. This is an approach that warrants consideration, because in such a case it would not be necessary for the Railways to blow whistles or hooters. After sober deliberation, however, the Department came back to me with a report and said that anything of that nature would be so much in conflict with the accepted common law procedures that one could not really go that far. We subsequently went on to look at what extent we could nevertheless accommodate the objectors. We eventually decided that the envisaged steps were as far as we could agree to. The present procedure is that wherever there is a level crossing, there is a signboard and further along another signboard next to the track. The driver of the train has instructions to blow his whistle from one signboard to the other. It is obvious that if the train is moving slowly and adhering strictly to the directions, there is a long whistle and if the train is moving quickly, there is a short whistle. We then felt it would be better if a whistle was sounded for a specific period rather than over a distance. That is why we then proposed that a driver that is no longer obliged to blow the whistle for longer than three seconds. He can, of course, blow his whistle for longer than three seconds.

The hon. member for Orange Grove argued the other side of the matter. He felt that if we were going to err, we should rather err in the direction of greater safety. The hon. member for Walmer, in turn, wants to state the other side of the matter. How can I satisfy everyone? It is just not possible. The fact of the matter is that the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Walmer implies that the noise caused by the hooter should be reduced. I now want to tell him—in fact I have told him this before in private—that we had the hooters of diesel locomotives tested and the finding was—I think this will satisfy the hon. member for Orange Grove now—that the noise caused by the diesel engines did not really constitute an effective safety measure. The Bureau of Standards has the following to say about this—

This is the question that was put to the Bureau of Standards. Their reply to the question was as follows—

This is the amount of noise that is caused—

To give an indication as to why we have our doubts about whether the present noise level of hooters should be reduced at all, I refer to an investigation that was instituted overseas. I received, inter alia, the following by way of a report—

A far greater intensity of sound is therefore recommended than that which they have, and which is equal to that which is used by the South African Railways.

A host of other questions was put to the Bureau of Standards, questions which were more or less the same as those I have just read, viz. that very serious doubts exist as to whether the noise the hooters are making at present should be reduced at all. I shall read only one of the questions—

The reply to this is—

The next question was—

The reply to this is—

This is the kind of data which we received from the Bureau of Standards and which forced us to arrive at the conclusion that we should rather not reduce the noise made by hooters. What we have now done—as set out in clause 3 of the legislation—is to determine that the hooter is to be blown for a minimum period of three seconds. It can be blown for more than three seconds but the minimum is three seconds. The hon. member for Orange Grove is concerned about the three seconds but where a dangerous situation exists, the engine driver can of course blow the hooter for longer than three seconds. He need not limit himself to three seconds, but under the Act he is not obliged to blow the hooter for more than three seconds; if the circumstances do not necessitate it, he need not blow the hooter for longer than three seconds. A further stipulation is that the hooter should only be used after 5 o’clock in the morning until 11 o’clock in the evening, and not during the night. I think that a very great concession is being made here in the elimination of the noise which would otherwise be made. In all fairness, I must say that I have had personal experience of this. Since complaints were made to me, I gave personal attention to the problem. One is not irritated so much by a noise the duration of which is limited. However, when one hears the shrill of a hooter lasting almost longer than one can hold one’s breath in, it is really irritating.

I believe the shortening of the period ought to contribute a great deal towards reducing the disturbance to people, particularly because it is not necessary to blow whistles during certain hours in the night—the time when people are normally sleeping, namely 23h00 to 05h00.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked whether one could not install flashing lights at level crossings. It is naturally possible to install lights where electricity is available, but there is obviously a great cost factor where electricity is not available. In such cases it is not economically justified either. I was asked whether the new section 8A(3) entailed an indemnity in all respects with regard to noise. My answer to that is “yes”. It does not apply only to level crossings. We are naturally committed to minimizing the noise the S.A. Railways makes. As I said at the very outset, however, we cannot eliminate it completely. Since we are making the concessions—and I believe they are substantial concessions, due to the changes that have been brought about—I really think it is justifiable for us to make provision at the same time for an indemnity clause in respect of essential noise that has to be caused by the Railways.

A few other matters were raised. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked me what a loaded fire-arm was. If one has a magazine of a pistol in one pocket and the pistol in another, then it is not a loaded pistol. The magazine and the bullets, therefore, have to be in the fire-arm in order to make it a loaded fire-arm.

The hon. member for Klip River asked me a question because he was concerned about the fact that no provision is made for stud animals or expensive animals that are killed at level crossings. This relates to the new section 38(5), page 11 of the Bill. It is true, but the hon. member will agree with me that as the provisions stood, and as they stand here as well, in fact, the amounts paid out for animals killed on crossings, is limited. Nor is there any provision whatsoever for animals that are more expensive or more valuable than the amounts provided for in the existing Act.

However, we are now making a major concession in respect of the value of property, but the hon. member is still concerned about the fact that no provision is made for the exceptional animal and for valuable animals. If there is a farmer who allows a stud bull to walk along the track or who thinks his stud bull is in danger, it is his own responsibility to contract a normal insurance agreement which, I assume, he would do in any event to protect himself against accidents or dangers that might threaten such an animal. Arising from the question asked by the hon. member for Klip River, I must point out that we are not changing the principle of the legislation but that we are simply making provision for the payment of a larger amount than was provided for previously.

The hon. member for Mooi River asked me to give an indication of my attitude towards the amendment. I do not see my way clear to accepting his amendment. Let me explain the matter to the hon. member. We are now providing for payments in respect of animals that are transported by the Railways. If any of those animals are killed, provision is made by regulation for payment subject to a maximum of R2 per kg. In clause 13, however, reference is made to an amount which is prescribed by regulation. This amount reaches a maximum of R2 per kg and it is applicable to animals that are in the process of being conveyed. The hon. member now wants me to insert the words “after consultation with the South African Agricultural Union”. Firstly, it is completely inappropriate, in my opinion, to insert this. Were I to insert it, it would make for inelegant legislation because basically, the regulations provide for other things than just the animals referred to in clause 13. Over and above this, the hon. member himself has given me the answer to my greatest problem. There is an old legal maxim that states: “The moment you specify, you exclude”. Consequently, if I specify that the Agricultural Union is to be consulted, then I naturally also have to specify that the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut is to be consulted in relation to other matters, that Assocom is to be consulted, that the Chamber of Industries is to be consulted, and so on. No matter how one specifies, then in all probability, one is going to exclude certain bodies which the hon. member would probably have thought ought to be included. Consequently, I want to ask him not to insist on that amendment.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should just like to explain what my amendment to clause 15 entails.

†I shall do this in English to make it easier for the hon. member, if that serves any purpose. I propose to move—

1. (1) On page 12, in line 36, to omit all the words after “(i)” up to and including the first “or” in line 38;
2. (2) On page 12, after line 55, to insert:
   1. (b) for the loss of a part of a consignment of goods or for the damage to or delay of goods accepted for transport, unless the claim has been lodged in the manner prescribed by regulation within 30 days of the date on which the consignment of goods has been delivered to the consignee; and
3. (3) On page 14, in lines 49 and 50, the words “subsection 3(a)(i)” be substituted by the words “subsection 3(b)”.

*This paragraph previously stood at the beginning of the clause in which provision was made for a period of notice of 14 days. At the request of Assocom, I am not making the period 30 days because they argue that this clause relates more specifically to imported commodities that are subject to insurance. In those cases it is necessary to make provision for a longer period than in the other cases. This has nothing to do with livestock. It has to do more specifically with imported goods.

The hon. member also asked me why the period is shorter if only a certain number of the animals in the truck are killed, whilst the period is longer if all the animals in the truck are killed. I shall explain to him what the reason for that is. If only a certain number of animals are killed, that truck will arrive at its destination and the animals that are still alive may then be off-loaded from the truck. The owner, or the person acting on his behalf, will therefore still know about it. However, when a truck is completely destroyed in an accident and all the animals are killed, it may happen that the consignment does not come to the attention of the owner or the person it is being sent to, to the same extent. Under those circumstances, I think it is justifiable for a longer period to be allowed.

I think I have now dealt with all the matters that have been raised so far.

What about the Railway Police?

Oh yes. I said at the outset that clause 14 was in accordance with the provision to be introduced in relation to the South African Police.

Why not allow the option of a fine as well?

The hon. member objects to the fact that in terms of subsection (1) such an offence is punishable only by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months and that there is no option of a fine.

For a most trivial offence the offender will be sent to gaol.

To be honest, I must say, I feel this provision is something that should be dealt with more specifically by my colleague, the Minister of Police. I would be hesitant to change this provision without first consulting him. The Railway Police are naturally not completely comparable to the South African Police. On the other hand, there is a need to bring the provisions applicable to the Railway Police into line with those applicable to the South African Police. I shall give the necessary attention to this matter, however, and if necessary and if my colleague, the Minister of Police, agrees—I should not like to do it without his approval—I shall be prepared to make the necessary provision in the Other Place if needs be.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 4, in line 34, after “train” to insert:
   , with a maximum sound level of 85 decibels,
2. (2) on page 4, in lines 45 to 48, to omit subsection (3).

Sir, I had the opportunity in the Second Reading of fully debating this matter with the hon. the Minister and he indicated in his reply that neither of these amendments is acceptable to him. I feel, more especially in relation to my second amendment, that the hon. the Minister could have adopted a more reasonable attitude because I feel that the second amendment is a most reasonable amendment.

Sir, I am not going to detain the House any longer because, as I have said, I had my opportunity during the Second Reading. I should, however, like to warn the hon. the Minister, if I may, that he will have to keep his door open to receive many more complaints, as they arrive, if clause 3 does not prove to provide an answer to the problems we have. I do not believe that clause 3 is the answer, but as long as the hon. the Minister and the Administration keep their doors open, we shall come with complaints if necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that we in these benches cannot support the amendments of the hon. member for Walmer. We believe the Railways should be supported as regards the clarification of its responsibility when it comes to sounding warnings at crossings. I referred to subsection (3) during the Second Reading. The hon. the Minister has stated clearly that that subsection is designed to give the Administration a carte blanche when it comes to the use of hooters, whistles or sirens. The subsection provides that—

Mr. Chairman, we believe this is going a bit too far. Any normal citizen, manager or operator of a factory or business does have to comply with certain local ordinances or regulations and I am quite sure that if any of us were to make a tremendous noise with hooters or other equipment in our towns or cities the local residents would soon have some authority or the other, some bye-law for example, which would ensure that we did not do this just ad lib, as it were. In this respect I feel that there should be some control over the use of locomotive hooters, but at the same time we do not believe that there should be any argument at all about the use of a hooter at a level crossing.. In terms of the new section 8A(2) it states that it will not be obligatory between the hours of 23h00 and 05h00 for locomotives of the Railways to blast their horns. In the event of a locomotive blowing its horn in a built-up area, we want to make it quite clear that it has done so because it was approaching a dangerous crossing and was doing so in the cause of the safety of people who may be on that crossing. There may, in fact, be a vehicle or pedestrian on that crossing at the time. We therefore feel that this does not constitute a nuisance in law and that it should be within the rights of the Railways to do so. At the same time we disagree entirely with giving a Railway employee the right simply to blow his hooter in a marshalling yard. During the process of shunting trucks a shunter may have put a locomotive onto a certain siding and, possibly because of the call of nature, disappears for a few minutes. The driver becomes impatient, as we know does happen, and he gives a blast on the horn of the locomotive, asking the shunter to give him the go-ahead to move his locomotive. If this does not produce results he blasts his horn a second or a third time, which does constitute a nuisance to the local residents. For that reason I should like to move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. The whole situation arises from the answer which the hon. the Minister gave in reply to the Second Reading. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked the hon. the Minister what exactly the intention of this subsection (3) was. In his reply the hon. the Minister said that his intention was to exonerate the Railways Administration from any responsibility regarding any bye-laws or any laws which provide for the constitution of a nuisance by noise and to indemnify the Railways from any responsibility arising out of the creation of a noise nuisance, not only where it comes to a warning at a level crossing. If one looks at the new section 8A one will see that both subsections (1) and (2) refer to level crossings only. Where warning is given at a level crossing, as the hon. member for Amamzimtoti has indicated, we have no objection whatsoever. If, at any time of the night, a horn is to be used as a warning device, the Railways should be able to use it at any pitch, for any length of period, as long as it is used at a level crossing and as a warning device. However, when it comes to the use of a horn for any other purpose, we believe that the Railways must take their responsibility in the same way as any other organization, whether it is a factory or whether it is a business concern, or whether it is a private individual who drives up and down the street blowing the horn of his motor car. That constitutes a nuisance, and as such, it constitutes an offence.

While in Cape Town, I happen to live in Pinelands, and many years ago I can remember the previous member for Pinelands, Mr. Newton Thompson, raising repeatedly with this hon. Minister’s predecessor the question of the noise of shunting at Pinelands at night. Last night I lay awake three hours listening to that shunting at Pinelands. It was not only the fly-shunting. It was not only the sound of the engines. It was also the horns, and it was the tooting. It was obvious that there were some shunters who had many calls of nature, because … [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Will the hon. member tell us whether they were shunting or traincompiling? [Interjections.]

That is a question, Mr. Chairman, which only the hon. the Minister can answer. I cannot answer that, for I was not there to see. In all seriousness, the tooting of the horns last night in Pinelands constituted a nuisance, and I believe it would be wrong for this Committee this afternoon to indemnify the Railways from any responsibility regarding the level of the noise when shunting operations and other operations take place.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has made it quite clear. With regard to warnings at level crossings we are prepared to concede. That is the whole gravamen of his amendment, that we will allow the indemnification of the Railways Administration at level crossings, but in other circumstances, I believe, they must take exactly the same risk of prosecution if they create a nuisance by the tooting of their horns.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to waste time. I simply want to say that we in these benches will not support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Walmer. The first one we do not agree with. The second one, we believe, is more adequately served by the amendment moved by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. We will support his amendment. We too do not believe that the Railways should have a blanket indemnity to make noise. We believe that if they are under some restraint, there will be a greater tendency to control the unnecessary use of hooters at night.

Mr. Chairman, in recent years the Railways has received repeated representations and complaints, as a result of this very noise and disturbances caused by the whistles and hooters of locomotives, and especially during the night. I am grateful that the Railways, with the aid of the S.A. Bureau of Standards, has carried out investigations in this regard. They came to the undisputed conclusion that any significant reduction in the sound level would impair the effectiveness of the warning device without eliminating the nuisance and noise. It has been established by the courts that the user of a level crossing is entitled to expect the warning and that he can demand to it.

However, the road user must exhibit greater responsibility in this regard when he uses a level crossing. It is too generally accepted that the road user will be warned when a train is approaching. Traffic signs in this regard are simply ignored and such crossings are negotiated by the driver as though there is no danger. I wish to take the statement by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti even further. His “slow down and look” should rather be interpreted as “stop and look”. This applies especially to heavy vehicles, and more specifically, passenger buses. I should like to appeal to those bodies and persons to be more careful. In this clause it is not envisaged to eliminate the whistle signals, but to shorten the period of time during which the hooters may be sounded, especially during the night hours. Furthermore, the whistle signals will only be compulsory from 05h00 to 23h00. This provision is generally welcomed because it is true that noise is more intensive and a greater disturbance during the night than during the day. The clause only applies to level crossings, specifically unguarded level crossings. However, the problem is that noise does not only occur at the crossings. On the contrary. During the night there is more noise in the shunting yards, which are situated in residential areas in many cases. I should like to refer specifically to Capital Park, a marshalling yard in my constituency.

Complaints are continually received from the residents of Capital Park, Ellofsdal and other residential areas in the vicinity. The real problem is that there are three old-age homes in that area, within a radius of 2 km, where there are old people living who have to listen to the noise every night. I have been told that in shunting, two-way radios are being used to an increasing extent in marshalling trains. However, I wish to assure the House that there is no noteworthy reduction in the level of noise. Therefore I wish to make a friendly appeal that the matter be examined very carefully by the department with a view to attempting to reduce the noise of train hooters in the marshalling yards.

Mr. Chairman, I have been very accommodating with regard to the requests made to us from various quarters concerning this clause. I think it is only right and fair that the Railways, too, should get something for itself in the process. The arguments which have been advanced, are extremely academical. As I said before, it is true that the Railways cannot do its work properly 24 hours per day without making a noise. It is not only the hooters which make a noise, but also the steam or diesel locomotives which makes a very substantial noise in the area where it operates.

The hooters make the most noise.

Where has the hon. member ever heard that a steam locomotive, or even a diesel locomotive, can run without any noise? [Interjections.] There are also other circumstances in which it is necessary to sound the hooter. As, for instance, at any time when there is anyone or anything on the railway line. Even though it is not a level crossing, it is essential to sound the hooter. In the marshalling yards we are making more and more use of two-way radios, with which contact is maintained among the various people working in the shunting yards. As a result of this the use of hooters is limited to a minimum.

All these things are being done by the Railways because we wish to limit the noise to a minimum in the interests of the public. There is no question of there being grounds for possible court cases in those circumstances. There is no question of more noise being made in those circumstances as a result of this protective measure which is being adopted under subsection (3), no more than is being made at the moment. As a result I think that the argument advanced by hon. members on that side is altogether an academic one. I should like to insist that the clause remains as it reads at the moment.

Amendments moved by Mr. T. Aronson negatived.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. S. Bartlett negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, in his reply to the Second Reading the hon. the Minister gave an explanation to the point I had raised in connection with this clause. I am prepared to accept that as being a reasonable reply. All I want to say to the hon. the Minister is that I believe that the number of times that he in fact will have to consult with any of the bodies he mentioned, will be very minimal. I really do not think it will happen more than once or twice every five years or so. However, at the same time I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister—and I know it is his intention to do so—that organized agriculture will figure in any consultation that may take place about the alteration of the regulations he will issue in this particular regard.

You have that assurance.

I welcome the assurance from the hon. the Minister and consequently I shall not move my amendment printed on the Order Paper.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a little further the discussion on the question of the amendment proposed in respect of an assault on a policeman whilst performing his duty. The existing law stipulates that the penalty in the case of an assault shall be imprisonment for six months or the option of a fine. This amendment does two things. Firstly, it raises the maximum of the fine to R500, which is quite acceptable. However, I do not understand why it should be thought necessary that the courts can punish those who assault policemen whilst performing their duty only by imprisonment without the courts having a discretion in a proper case to impose a fine.

The point is that it is quite possible, during a disturbance on a railway station, for a policeman, for example, to be pushed away from someone by a person who is involved in a fracas of some kind. That can quite easily happen in a situation where, when the facts are known, it is somebody who believed that the policeman was being a little too robust in the exercise of his duty and in the heat of the moment thought he was doing the proper thing by pushing the policeman away. There is a whole variety of similar circumstances where technically the man would necessarily be found guilty of an assault by the court, and whilst it may be necessary to punish the person concerned, a period of imprisonment will not be a proper punishment for an offence of that kind. One can think of a variety of circumstances where, in the heat of the moment, an assault of a very minor nature could be committed and where the imposition of a fine would be a proper penalty. I appreciate what the hon. the Minister has already said in this respect. I know that a similar amendment is being introduced into the Police Bill and that the hon. the Minister wishes to consult his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice. If the hon. the Minister finds it possible to say to the House that he will reconsider the matter before it is introduced in the Other Place and that he will consider an amendment similar to the one I have handed to him, I shall not move any amendment at this stage. I merely wish to point out that so far a case has not been made out for compulsory imprisonment as a punishment for an assault of a technical nature.

Mr. Chairman, I merely wish to reinforce what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said. I raised the matter during the Second Reading. We in these benches do not believe that the discretion of judicial officers should be reduced at all and we shall be most grateful if the hon. the Minister does give us the assurance that he will have a look at it before it goes to the Other Place. I had, in fact, phrased a similar amendment, but I shall not move it if the hon. the Minister gives us that assurance.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that although the first part of clause 14 does not provide for a fine, but only for imprisonment, the fact remains that the magistrate is under no obligation to put the imprisonment into effect. It is still within his discretion to impose a suspended sentence or to make the term of imprisonment so short that it is appropriate to the particular circumstances. Under the present circumstances I think it is essential that there should be a very strong deterrent for cases of assault on the police. Earlier I gave an indication of my problems in this regard, and I said that I should like to consult my colleague, the Minister of Police. I undertake to discuss the matter with him. Whatever the outcome of our discussion of the particular matter which the hon. members have raised, I shall contact the hon. members for Umhlatuzana and Orange Grove to give them an indication of what I am going to do when the matter is considered in the Other Place.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister did, in his reply to the Second Reading, indicate that the amendment which he intended to move did not apply to consignments of livestock, part of which are damaged in transit en route to the market. The hon. the Minister made the point that such a consignment of livestock is under control. It is passing from the consignor to a consignee, being either a market agent, the abattoir or wherever it is being delivered. The stock may also be delivered to a private farmer. I must say I have had the experience myself with a consignment of sheep. A number of sheep died in transit and somebody said that they had died from railway disease and that therefore I could not claim compensation. I just mention this in passing. The point I wish to make is that the hon. the Minister is taking powers to limit a claim for compensation to a time of 14 days after delivery. If some of the stock has been damaged or injured in transit, one has 14 days from the time of delivery in which to lodge a claim. The part of the original provision which is to be deleted provides that—

That period of four months is now being cut down to 14 days.

The hon. the Minister himself, in an amendment he is going to move, intends increasing that period. He intends removing the first part of paragraph (a) and introducing it further down in the section and extending the period to 30 days. I think it would be entirely reasonable if he were to follow the same procedure in relation to consignment of livestock. If the owner of the life-stock concerned lives some distance away, it may be difficult for him to make all the arrangements necessary to have the claim instituted and so on. I think that where a person has consigned his livestock to the Railways in good faith and some of the livestock are injured in transit, he should be given every opportunity to lay his claim and to substantiate that claim to the Administration. Therefore I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 12, in line 36, to omit all the words after “(i)” up to and including the first “or” in line 38;
2. (2) on page 12, after line 55, to insert:
   1. (b) for the loss of a part of a consignment of goods or for the damage to or delay of goods accepted for transport, unless the claim has been lodged in the manner prescribed by regulation within thirty days of the date on which the consignment of goods has been delivered to the consignee;
3. (3) on page 14, in lines 49 and 50, to omit “(3)(a)(i)” and to substitute “3(b)”.

The last amendment is just a consequential amendment and it is not necessary for us to argue about it. I have already pointed out that Assocom have discussed this matter with us and that we felt that it was justified that we extend the period in this case from 14 to 30 days.

As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River is concerned, I want to say that I honestly do not believe that it is justified to extend the relative period from 14 days to 30 days. I would like to point out to the hon. member that there is a basic difference as far as the words in bold type are concerned which in terms of the clause will be left out, i.e.—

In this case the relative date of commencement of the period is the date on which the cause of the debt originates, whilst in the proposed amendment it is the date on which the goods are delivered to the addressee. Basically it is a large difference. From the date when the goods are delivered, the addressee has 14 days to lodge a claim. He only has to report the claim because the details of it can be furnished at a later stage. If we want to modernize and round off our system of claims, it is really not necessary to allow a longer period than these 14 days for it.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to hear from the hon. the Minister that he will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River. I believe that the hon. the Minister is being unreasonable this afternoon. If we look at the Act that is being amended, viz. The Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, and specifically at section 32 of that Act, we see that it is headed—

That has been the provision in the past. That section reads—

unless he lodges his claim within four months. The hon. the Minister knows that the situation today is that a claimant has four months in which to lodge his claim, irrespective of whether it concerns goods, livestock or anything else. I believe it is unreasonable to reduce that period of four months to 14 days. To reduce that period from four months to one month is what the hon. member for Mooi River is asking for. He is asking that it be reduced to a quarter of the original period. The hon. the Minister shakes his head and says: “No way.”

No. It is not the same animal.

Why does he say it is not the same animal? Of course it is the same animal. I cannot understand what the hon. the Minister is talking about. I must refer him to clause 11 of the Bill which repeals section 32 of the Control and Management Act, viz. the section to which I have just referred. That section allows a claimant four months within which to lodge his claim. Then, in section 64, which deals with the limitation of actions, certain limitations are placed upon a railway user in respect of any claim or action he may have against the Administration. Yet the hon. the Minister reduces the period even further. I believe it would be reasonable to reduce the period from four months to one month, but it would be most unreasonable to reduce it from four months to half a month.

I want to direct an appeal to the hon. the Minister. We accept his amendment—of course we do—because it places the railway user in a better position than he is in as the Bill is drafted at present. But that only applies in respect of the loss of part of a consignment of goods or of damage to or a delay in the delivery of goods accepted for transport. Why penalize the farmer? This is discrimination against the farmer. Why does he penalize the agricultural sector?

“Boerehater!”

Sir, my friend here says “Boerehater”! I hesitate to use that epithet in respect of this particular Minister, but I want to say that I know there are many farmers on that side of the House, some of whom are having a quiet conference in a comer there, who should be supporting me in this.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Sir, with respect, I am restricting myself to the clause. I must refer you, Sir, to the proposed new subsection (3)(a)(ii) and also to subparagraph (iii) which relate particularly to the farmer in that they deal with “the killing of livestock forming part of a consignment” and “the killing of livestock by a train”.

That has nothing to do with “Boerehate”.

Sir, if the hon. the Minister does not want to look after the farmers, can I not say that he is a “Boerehater”? Sir, to be serious, I take your point and I shall abide by your ruling.

You are being serious.

Sir, to be serious, I really believe that it is unreasonable of the hon. the Minister to expect these people to lodge their claims within 14 days. When a farmer in South West Africa consigns his goods to Johannesburg or even to the Durban abattoirs and on arrival part of the consignment is damaged, the agent will have to advise the farmer in South West Africa that he must lodge a claim. The hon. the Minister knows what the postal services are like in this country. How is the farmer to lodge his claim within 14 days? Most important of all—this is the point that was made by the hon. member for Mooi River—this does not refer to a full consignment. When the farmer consigns a full consignment of animals, he knows what the value of that consignment is to him when he consigns it. In the case of a full consignment, he is given 60 days to lodge his claim and in that case he knows the value of the consignment. However, when part of a consignment is affected, the farmer will have to ascertain which part was affected and what the value of the balance is. He will have to work out his losses. Yet the hon. the Minister expects him to do this within 14 days. I believe that that is unreasonable and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to withdraw his amendment and to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River.

The amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River covers the amendment of the hon. the Minister. Indeed, it goes further and it will show to the farmers of this country that the hon. the Minister of Transport does have some compassion for them, and that he is prepared to allow them exactly the same concessions that he is giving to the industrialists and to the traders. The importer, the trader and the industrialist is now privileged in that he is allowed 30 days within which to lodge his claim, while the poor old farmer is being ground into the dust by this hon. Minister who insists that he must put in his claim within 14 days.

Mr. Chairman, I also believe that 30 days would be a more reasonable time in which to lodge a claim. I see the practical difficulties which have been put forward by speakers on this side of the House and I shall therefore support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mooi River.

Mr. Chairman, as I said just now, we are now modernizing the procedure of handling our claims. If I were to satisfy all these requests, I would not be able to succeed in my purpose. The hon. member seeks to make out that the point at issue is the farmer. However, I want to point out to him that it is not just a question of the farmer at all. If my amendment is accepted and the first part of subsection (a)(i) is omitted, the 14 days will apply to the damage to or destruction of the freight container in which the goods were packed and despatched; therefore not only on animals; to the killing of livestock forming part of a consignment, to the killing or injury of livestock in terms of section 38 and to damage to or destruction of property by fire as contemplated in sections 69 and 70. These 14 days apply in all those cases; and the four months—that is why I said just now by way of interjection that it was not the same animal—which were applicable previously, ran from the time at which the claim was made. That was stated expressly in the original subsection (3) which reads as follows—

In this case the period is not calculated from that date but from the date on which a consignment reached its final destination. In other words, it runs from the day on which somebody—either the owner or the person who acts on his behalf—at least knows of the damage that had been caused. As a result it is felt that a period of 14 days is quite sufficient under all these circumstances, even in the case of consignment of livestock which is sent from Windhoek to Johannesburg. The hon. member does not have to write; nowadays he can use the telephone.

That is even worse than the post.

Nowadays there is direct dialling between Johannesburg and Windhoek. You could also make use of the telex. All that has to be done is that the claim has to be lodged. The particulars can be worked out later on. We would really not succeed in attaining our purpose if we accept this amendment.

Amendment (1) moved by the Minister of Transport agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. M. Sutton negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments (2) and (3) moved by the Minister of Transport agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.