Mr. Speaker, after the hon. the Minister of Transport has delivered his Budget Speech this afternoon and the debate has been adjourned, all three stages of the National Roads Amendment Bill will be disposed of, after which we shall proceed with the business as printed on the Order Paper. Tomorrow the House will also proceed with the business on the Order Paper. On Friday private members’ motions will be discussed. Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of next week will be reserved for the Second Reading, Committee Stage and Third Reading of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When the estimates for the financial year now drawing to a close were compiled, it was anticipated that the reflection of the economies of South Africa’s major trading partners would stimulate exports and that this, together with a decline in imports and an improvement in the price of gold, would, notwithstanding a sustained relatively low level of capital inflow, bring about a moderate upturn in the South African economy during 1977.

Although reduced imports, a sharp increase in exports and a rise in the gold price have been realized and have brought about a dramatic improvement in the current account of the balance of payments, unfavourable developments in the capital account have resulted in a continued decline in foreign reserves, with the result that the restrictive monetary and fiscal policy had to be continued into 1977. Consequently, the commercial and industrial sectors have reflected a negative growth rate. The expected small rise of approximately 1,6% in the real gross domestic product for 1977 will therefore stem exclusively from relatively satisfactory achievements in the agricultural, mining and exporting sectors.

Whilst the actual overall traffic volume handled by the Railways is not substantially below the level forecast in the original estimates, the ratio of high to low-rated traffic is weaker. The basic reason for this is that, whilst low-rated traffic in general has been up to expectations—mainly as a result of the achievements in the agricultural, mining and export sectors already referred to—the weaker performance of the commercial and industrial sectors has resulted in high-rated traffic being below the budgeted figures. In order to balance revenue with expenditure, especially in the face of continually rising operating costs, early steps were taken to curb expenditure wherever possible.

An analysis of the most important economic indicators reveals that the decline in the industrial sector has been arrested and expectations are that the new year will see a moderate increase in industrial production. With an expected further strengthening of the balance of payments position and a possible slight decline in the inflation rate, a broader stimulation of the economy during 1978 is a distinct possibility. Furthermore, a rise in real income, coupled with a relatively low level of inventories and the availability of production capacity, can contribute positively towards higher production at declining unit costs. The replacement of imports by domestic production also offers considerable challenges to local producers.

On the strength of the foregoing, I expect a more balanced growth pattern in 1978 which could possibly result in an increase of between 2 and 3% in the gross domestic product for 1978-’79.

Before dealing in greater detail with the prospects for the ensuing financial year, I should like to review the Department’s activities during the past year.

Passenger Services

During the period April to December 1977, first class main line journeys decreased by 1,7%, second class by 5,3%, and third class by 3,5%. On the suburban services, first and third class journeys fell by 9,7% and 3,5%, respectively.

Although this trend can be ascribed in a large measure to the present state of the economy, market research on passenger preferences indicates that the general public is still reluctant to change its accustomed travel patterns.

All aspects of passenger train services continue to receive attention in order that they may be adapted in accordance with existing needs. To equate supply with demand, services experiencing insufficient support have been reduced over various sections. During the past three years 12 main line, 56 branch line and 274 suburban passenger trains have been cancelled, whilst passenger accommodation on 40 mixed trains has also been withdrawn. Owing to lack of support and consequent losses sustained over an extended period, I have also decided to withdraw the Drakensberg express service between Durban and Cape Town and to revert to a once per week only service between Johannesburg and Durban with effect from 1 June 1978. One set of the Drakensberg Express will then be available for tourist traffic.

Hon. members will recall that I indicated last year that research was to be conducted into the socio-economic aspect of passenger services rendered by the Railways. A report dealing mainly with the major principles to be followed in determining the socio-economic functions and aspects of a service has since been submitted to me. I intend to give further attention to the matter in an effort to bring about an equitable solution to the problem of uneconomic services in general and socioeconomic services in particular.

To streamline existing passenger services the credit card facility is being extended, and it is the intention, in the long term, to computerize and combine seat reservation and ticket issuing. This system will also be linked to the South African Airways’ SAAFARI system so that an intending passenger can be offered an alternative mode of transport.

In an effort to reduce losses on catering services, the concept of self-service on trains is receiving attention.

Goods Services

No problems were experienced during the year in handling the increased overall tonnages of traffic offering and in meeting seasonal demands for the conveyance of maize and other agricultural products. I am pleased also to record that winter coal supplies for power station, domestic and industrial use were fully maintained. Record stockpiles are now available.

These achievements are largely due to the many innovations and techniques that have been progressively implemented in recent years. The high degree of efficiency and productivity achieved is evident in better performances in so far as train speeds and heavier train loads are concerned and is also reflected by the following particulars of traffic conveyed.

During the period April to December 1977, the total tonnage of goods traffic conveyed by rail increased by 11,7% to 118,7 million tons compared with the same period in 1976. However, as already indicated, there has been a decline in high-rated traffic, whilst lowrated goods, particularly export ores and minerals and coal, have shown marked increases.

High-rated traffic decreased by 9,6% in 1977 whilst low-rated traffic rose by 18,8%. As a result, high-rated traffic contributed only 40,4% of total revenue as against 47% in 1976. Hon. members will appreciate that this has a significant influence on total railway revenue; in fact, the reduction in the ratio of high to low-rated traffic is estimated to represent a potential revenue loss of R72 million in the current financial year.

Although the railway still holds a predominant share in the transport of bulk commodities, its share in the total freight market has decreased considerably over the years. If this form of transport is to play a significant part in the conveyance of smaller consignments comprising high-value manufactured goods and items for individual consumption, intensified efforts are necessary to ensure that all services are offered at an acceptable standard of quality and price.

As regards quality, the railways can ensure increased reliability and acceptable transit times, but it is alive to the fact that if it were to continue to play an important and expanding role in the general transport market for goods other than bulk traffic, additional means of improving its services must constantly be sought. This ideal can best be attained in a multi-modal, completely integrated service combining the best qualities of rail and road transport. In the concept of containerization the South African Railways sees new opportunities of attracting traffic, particularly in that market segment in which it was gradually losing ground.

Containerization

I am glad to inform the House that since my announcement last year that large-scale containerization was to be implemented in 1977, the harbour and inland terminals were commissioned, on schedule, on 1 July 1977. Unit trains now operate daily between Durban and Johannesburg while block load trains have been introduced between Johannesburg and the coastal cities of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and East London.

Operations at the container terminals at Durban and Table Bay Harbours and at City Deep in Johannesburg commenced on 1 July 1977 to coincide with the expected arrival of the first cellular vessel. A container depot for local traffic was commissioned at Bayhead, Durban, on 17 October 1977. The volume of containerized traffic between Durban and Johannesburg prompted the introduction of special rates—commonly referred to as box rates—for import, export and domestic containerized traffic moving along this corridor. The extension of the box rate principle to other centres is subject to sufficient volumes of traffic offering.

Hon. members will be interested to know that the City Deep terminal is designed to handle 2 000 containers daily. When this volume is attained, City Deep will be the largest inland container depot in the world. The depot is regarded as a port and the necessary facilities for import and export formalities are available there.

The Department was informed in April 1977 that roll-on/roll-off vessels would also be introduced on the South African trade by certain European shipping lines. The service will start towards the end of 1978. To provide for these ships at East London, alterations entailing expenditure of R630 000 in 1978-’79 will have to be made.

The national transport system is already fully geared for containerization, which now opens new horizons for our exporters on world markets.

Harbours

The change in the relative proportions of cargo landed and shipped at the various ports is continuing. Comparing the period April to December 1977 with the corresponding period of the previous year, the tonnage of general cargo landed decreased by almost 14% while general cargo shipped rose by 13%. The decreased tonnages of general cargo landed resulted mainly from smaller quantities of general merchandise and steel and timber imports, whilst the increased shipments are attributable principally to higher steel and agricultural exports.

Bulk cargo shipments increased by 71,9% to 32,8 million tons, as a result of the higher tonnages of ores, minerals and coal exported. Up to the end of December 1977 some 8,3 million tons of ore were exported through Saldanha Bay, whilst the tonnage of 8,5 million export coal shipped through Richards Bay represents an increase of 4,4 million tons over the figure for 1976.

Together, Richards Bay and Saldanha Bay harbours are making increasingly important contributions to our country’s international trade. Since the commissioning thereof during 1976, coal and ores to the value of more than R450 million have already been exported through these ports.

As hon. members are aware, the Sishen-Saldanha transport scheme is now an integral part of the national transportation system. The take-over of the facilities has proceeded smoothly and in close collaboration with Iscor.

There was a slight increase in the number of ships that called at the harbours. However, no major delays to ships were experienced and the harbours succeeded in handling efficiently all traffic throughout the year, despite the added responsibilities associated with the preparation for and the introduction of containerization.

Pipelines

A decrease of 5,6% was recorded in the total volume of products conveyed by pipeline during the period April to December 1977, compared with the same period in 1976.

The additional pipeline from Durban to the Witwatersrand, including the Witbank extension, is expected to be operational in four months’ time.

Road Transport Services

During the period April to December 1977, the total volume of traffic conveyed by the Road Transport Services decreased by 11,8% to 2,5 million tons, compared with the same period in 1976. The number of passengers conveyed decreased by 18,7% to 11,1 million.

This decline in goods and passenger traffic is attributable mainly to the economic situation, the general tendency of farmers and cooperatives to undertake their own transport, and the transfer of services in Transkei.

The handing over of services in Transkei to the Development Corporation of that country was scheduled to take place in four stages. However, due to a shortage of technical staff and garage facilities the Corporation has, up to the present, only been able to take over the internal services.

Although there are no internal departmental services in Bophuthatswana, specific services, particularly those operated for the convenience of Bophuthatswana citizens, will be taken over by Bophuthatswana Transport Holdings (Pty.) Limited on behalf of the Bophuthatswana Government.

Airways

Undoubtedly the highlight of the first nine months of the current financial year was the success of the determined efforts to improve the airline’s finances. The recovery was indeed swifter than was anticipated and the results of working for the period April to December reflect a profit of R8,6 million as against an anticipated loss of R15,7 million. It is particularly gratifying to note that, notwithstanding continued escalation of cost, revenue has grown at a faster rate than expenditure, reflecting the efficiency and quality of SAA’s operations. This recovery is even more remarkable when viewed against the general economic and political background.

Real economic growth is one of the main determinants of business air travel and airfreight demand, while consumer spending and related factors such as unemployment, consumer price inflation and exchange rate fluctuations, are considered to be key income indicators for pleasure and other non-business travel. Although the modest world economic recovery evidenced in 1976 continued into 1977, the rate of recovery in economic activity has slowed down somewhat in many industrial countries. A number of the more important traffic generating countries experienced a low level of economic activity. Similarly, the level of economic activity has been low in South Africa during the past 12 to 18 months.

The most significant factor contributing towards the improved working results in the face of the conditions which I have just described, is the fact that SAA is now starting to reap the benefits of our farsightedness in building up an effective fleet of aircraft. The improved long-range capabilities of the 747 aircraft enabled SAA to introduce more direct services to Europe and thereby decrease the competitive disadvantage of having to fly round the bulge of Africa. This, coupled with intensive sales and economy campaigns, has had the result that during the first nine months of the current financial year a saving of R9,7 million in expenditure was realized, whilst revenue exceeded expectations by nearly R14,7 million—a total improvement of over R24 million.

On our most important market route, that to Europe and the United Kingdom, passenger and cargo traffic for this period increased by 10,9% and 28,4%, respectively. On the regional services and those to North America and Argentina, traffic increases also continue at a satisfactory level. Traffic on the service to Hong Kong has more than doubled since the introduction of an SP aircraft on that route from 1 July 1977.

Some of our overseas SAA offices have recently been the targets of bomb threats and demonstrations. I am, however, proud to say that our staff in those offices have displayed a strong sense of duty and loyalty to their country and airline, and have not flinched in the least from these misguided exhibitions of animosity. At the same time I must say that in general the inhabitants of those cities have ignored the demonstrations.

On the domestic routes passenger traffic decreased by 1,2% during the first nine months of the current year, a clear reflection of the prevailing economic conditions in the Republic. This result, although marginal, is nevertheless disappointing, especially in the light of the introduction of the Airbus, since new aircraft types have always stimulated traffic.

Staff

Although the staff position has remained basically sound, shortages still prevail in certain grades.

Training of staff to ensure an efficient work force continues to receive high priority and in this respect academic training and managerial development are assuming ever-increasing importance. Under the engineering assistant training scheme, 244 candidates are in training at present. Altogether 97 new bursaries have been granted in 1978 for study in the engineering disciplines, quantity surveying, architecture and pharmacy.

In addition to the Scholarship Scheme for Administrative Officers, for which 390 bursaries have been awarded since 1960 for full-time study at South African universities, the Department also encourages its staff to follow extramural studies in approved academic directions. To date 287 servants have been assisted in this way, of whom 103 have already obtained Bachelor Degrees.

Thus far 360 senior officers have attended the Department’s Management Development Course. A commencement has already been made with a Middle Management Development Centre. Much enthusiasm exists among railway staff for this development scheme embarked upon some three years ago. The signs of a new approach to problems and their solution are already evident. Senior managers are noticeably working in closer collaboration and greater understanding with each other and their subordinates in a goal-orientated approach.

During the past year a number of hon. members and their colleagues in the Other Place were given the opportunity of inspecting the Department’s training facilities at Kaalfontein. They also visited workshops and other developments in Pretoria and at Jan Smuts Airport and were able to gauge the high standards of performance aimed at and achieved. I would like to assure those hon. members of our sincere appreciation of their keen interest.

As hon. members are aware, a general salary increase of 10% was granted by the Government with effect from July 1976 to workers in the public sector to compensate them to some extent for the rise in the cost of living. In announcing this, the hon. the Prime Minister indicated that a further salary improvement with effect from January 1977 would be considered if the general economic and financial position of the country did not deteriorate materially. It was, unfortunately, not possible to grant this increase, but the assurance was given that financial relief would be considered as soon as circumstances permitted. It has since been found possible to approve of a further salary increase with effect from January 1978.

In the meantime two Railway staff associations, namely the Artisan Staff Association and the S.A. Footplate Staff Association, have declared disputes with the Administration. As the Commissions appointed to investigate these matters have not yet submitted their recommendations, hon. members will appreciate that I cannot comment further at this stage.

I am glad to announce that I approved of considerable improvements in pension benefits for widows with effect from 1 December 1977.

The purchase of properties under the three house ownership schemes for White staff continued, and some 3 000 houses will be purchased during 1977-’78, bringing the number purchased since the inception of the schemes to 33 000. Altogether 25 170 departmental houses were available to the staff on 30 November 1977.

By the end of the 1976-’77 financial year, 201 houses had been acquired under the house ownership scheme for Coloured staff and it is expected that by the end of the current financial year some 321 Coloured servants and their families will be so housed.

The house ownership scheme for Indian staff has thus far not gained momentum. It is hoped, however, that certain problems concerning the acquisition of building sites from the Durban Corporation and the Department of Community Development will be sorted out and that 12 houses will have been acquired before the end of the current financial year.

In all, the Department expects to spend a record amount of some R121 million on the various housing schemes during the 1978-’79 financial year.

Following upon the recommendations of the committee referred to in my previous Budget Speech, the introduction of a house ownership scheme for Black staff has been approved in principle. My colleague, the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, is at present giving attention to a scheme whereby Blacks may acquire occupation rights in urban areas. As soon as the necessary legislation in this connection has been approved by Parliament, it will be possible for me to proceed with the introduction of enabling legislation to provide for the establishment of the Railways’ house ownership scheme for Black staff.

Co-operation with Neighbouring States

The Department is pursuing its policy of maintaining sound business ties with neighbouring countries, including the homelands, as they achieve independence.

Following upon representations from the Swaziland Government, senior S.A. Railway personnel were made available to their Railways on a secondment basis. They are also being assisted with staff training and consulting services, for instance in connection with the signal and telecommunication scheme for the Phuzumoya-Golela line, their proposed new outlet to Richards Bay or Durban.

In October 1977 a tripartite agreement was concluded between the Moçambique Railways, the South African Railways and a South African firm for the complete re-signalling of the Moçambique railway line between Ressano Garcia and Maputo. It is expected that this work will be completed by October 1979 with S.A. Railway engineers providing technical guidance.

As was the case with Transkei, Bophuthatswana, which recently became independent, has since entered into a formal agreement with our Government whereby the railway lines traversing its territory are also operated by the S.A. Railways as an integral part of the S.A.R. network.

Considerable progress has been made with the training of Transkei citizens to render services to their own people. Some 70 persons have already been trained in posts such as clerk, checker, train marshaller, guard, station foreman and ticket collector.

Transportation can, and in many cases does have a singularly unifying effect on countries. This is especially applicable to the Southern African subcontinent where nearly all the rail systems are compatible in gauge and other equipment. South Africa, with its acknowledged position of leadership in all facets of transportation, is in a unique position to foster closer relationships with all the countries of this geographical area and, provided that realism prevails, this can only bode well for the future. The S.A. Railways has already given proof of its readiness to assist all the countries concerned by conveying their traffic over its lines and placing its harbours at their disposal, and by giving assistance and advice whenever this is requested. Furthermore, its knowledge and techniques are home grown and therefore meet the peculiar needs of Southern Africa.

*Capital Investment Programme

Last year I indicated that the Department’s objectives in providing an adequate transportation infrastructure were being severely affected by the necessity to curb expenditure, and that, as a result of the shortage of capital, only two new items could be included in the Capital and Betterment Estimates for 1977-’78. These related to the acquisition of additional branch line diesel locomotives and the conversion of iron ore hopper wagons to covered wagons, and as such do not fall within the ambit of infrastructure per se.

However, steady progress has been maintained with essential projects, a number of which were recently completed or are scheduled for completion during the 1978-’79 financial year. These include—

1. (1) the country-wide inauguration of container facilities, and simultaneously, the Ben Schoeman Dock in Table Bay Harbour;
2. (2) the new single line between Wonderfontein and Arnot Power Station, which is already in use with temporary facilities;
3. (3) the installation of centralized traffic control between Broodsnyersplaas and Arnot Power Station which is expected to be completed by July this year;
4. (4) the staging yards for main line and suburban coaches, as well as Stage 1—the parcels complex—of the new passenger station at Durban. These facilities are already in use and, although the passenger facilities are only due for completion in 1982-’83, it is anticipated that they will be basically functional by the end of 1980;
5. (5) the remodelled yard at Natalspruit, at a cost of R11,2 million, which is expected to be completed in June this year;
6. (6) the improvements to and electrification of the line between Mandini and Empangeni which have also been completed;
7. (7) the deviations between Groenbult and Rubbervale and doubling and electrification of the lines between De Wildt and Brits and between Empangeni and Richards Bay which are expected to be completed by December 1978, and
8. (8) the Witbank-Eerste Fabrieke electrification and centralized traffic control scheme which should be completed in June this year.

The Department is engaged in a number of essential major improvement schemes, inter alia, in respect of facilities for suburban passenger traffic, which will cost many millions of rands and take a number of years to complete. The present economic position has, however, forced us to curtail capital expenditure and consequently completion of a number of these projects will be delayed.

Two schemes to cater for non-White commuters are of particular interest. One is the Mabopane-Belle Ombre project on which R5,3 million is being spent this year. For the coming financial year, provision has been made for R8,9 million in an effort to accelerate progress.

Another project is the proposed line to serve the Mitchell’s Plain Coloured Township. A relatively small amount was made available during the current financial year, but it is proposed to spend R6,1 million in 1978-’79.

Items of rolling stock delivered since April 1977 include, inter alia, 250 main line and 127 electric suburban coaches, 84 electric and 60 diesel locomotives, as well as nearly 4 000 goods vehicles of various types. With the exception of orders for 100 class 8E electric and 50 class 34 diesel locomotives—which are being held back on account of the financial position—the acquisition of all other items of rolling stock previously sanctioned is being proceeded with. The Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for 1978-’79 make provision for an additional 1 400 type CCR gondola wagons and 5 diesel hydraulic breakdown cranes.

Harbour equipment placed in service during 1977-”78 includes 9 container wharf cranes, 3 container stacking cranes, 2 transfer cranes, 81 fork lift trucks, 1 mobile crane, 14 shunting tractors, 42 straddle carriers, 79 truck tractors and 53 semi-trailers.

During the year a new tug was commissioned at Port Elizabeth, and a 125 ton floating crane and a pilot boat at Table Bay Harbour. Three Voith-Schneider tugs were taken over from Iscor at Saldanha Bay, whilst at that harbour and at Richards Bay various other items of floating craft were acquired from the harbour construction companies.

Due to the lack of adequate capital funds, the Department’s capital investment programme has, in real terms, been set at approximately the same level as that for 1977-’78. This level is, however, considerably below that for 1976-’77 and is manifestly inadequate to meet the country’s growing long-term infrastructural needs.

The problem would, however, have been far more formidable had the Department not adapted its financial policy in good time to meet the changed circumstances. Hon. members will recall that last year I announced that various measures were being applied in order to increase the liquidity of the organization, inter alia, so that in times of stringent capital market conditions its investment programme could be financed from own sources to a greater extent.

The system of inflation bookkeeping, whereby depreciation is based on the replacement value of an asset instead of on its original value, has been examined thoroughly. The most important aspects have been finalized and the system will be implemented as soon as it is practicable to do so. To ensure that the gap between the existing and the proposed levels does not widen further, depreciation contributions will be increased by 20% in 1978-’79 as an interim measure. This arrangement has enabled the Department, within the framework of an integrated capital budget, to make available an amount of R88 million from the Renewals Fund for the financing of its net investment programme for 1978-’79.

Apart from the fact that foreign loan funds are limited at present, the very short redemption periods prevent the large-scale application of such funds for the financing of fixed investments. In view of this it has been decided to go ahead with the policy of self-financing, with which a modest start was made during the current year. For 1978-’79 provision is being made for an allocation of R100 million from revenue for the financing of capital works. This is approximately 9,5% of the net investment programme and is comparatively small when measured against the overall financial structure and the sensitivity of the Railways to cyclical economic fluctuations.

Although the application of these financial measures is still relatively limited, they have nevertheless made an important contribution in ensuring that, in the absence of adequate loan funds, real investment in 1978-’79 will at least not decline further.

After the pruning of capital expenditure in accordance with available funds, and with due regard to present priorities, it has been possible to provide for a number of new items, the more important of which are—

1. (1) Stages 2 and 3 of the new electrified lines to serve the central marshalling yard at Bapsfontein, the cost of which amounts to R199,8 million. The work on the yard has now progressed to the stage where a start must be made with providing adequate connecting lines;
2. (2) the provision of regional goods depots at Benoni, Krugersdorp, Olifantsfontein and Springs at a total cost of R12,5 million, to enable the Administration to implement its declared policy of ensuring a more effective and efficient co-ordinated goods service. Financial provision is now being made for the purchase of the ground required for these depots;
3. (3) a road transport maintenance depot at a cost of R8,4 million to serve the City Deep Container Terminal Depot;
4. (4) the provision of multi-purpose bulk-handling facilities at Richards Bay harbour, at a cost of R46 million; and
5. (5) the provision of a 250 metre long quay at Saldanha Bay, capable of handling ships with a dead mass of 30 000 tons, as well as an exchange yard in the vicinity of Sishen. The additional facilities are required for the handling of some 2,3 million tons of iron ore emanating from parties other than Iscor; mineral concentrates comprising some 25 000 tons of copper and 140 000 tons of lead expected to flow from the Aggeneys area from 1980; 1,7 million tons of iron ore presently being exported through Port Elizabeth, as well as anticipated general traffic over the Sishen-Saldanha line.

The stage is being reached where, in order to cope with increasing traffic, considerable additional capital will have to be found to provide adequate facilities. When cognizance is taken of the rate of traffic increases, carrying capacity will have to be doubled within the next 20 years. Considering the vast amounts involved, it is obvious that alternative methods must be found to increase capacity. The extended use of heavier and longer trains, which would require a complete change-over to air-braked trains as the vacuum-brake system limits the tonnage conveyed per train, can contribute greatly to solving the problem. With this in view a task group has been established to prepare a programme for a gradual and orderly changeover to air brakes. Attention is also being given to the design of trucks generally with a view to improving load to tare ratios within the maximum loading gauge dimensions.

To ensure that regular supplies of coal are delivered to the various parts of the country, trains conveying coal in block loads and operating to fixed schedules, were introduced during the first quarter of 1977. The loads are compiled in such a way that trains need not be admitted to intermediate yards for re-marshalling and can cover longer distances before re-examination. This greatly reduces the transit time.

Operating Results for 1977-’78

After allowing for the revenue already brought to account, revenue for 1977-’78 is now estimated at R2 759,3 million—some R55,3 million less than the original estimate. This can be ascribed basically to a sharper decline in high-rated traffic than was anticipated at the beginning of the year.

Expenditure is now estimated at R2 725,1 million, which is R89,3 million below the original estimate. This was made possible by the continued intensification of the economy campaign introduced throughout the Service.

The year is now expected to close with a surplus of R34,2 million instead of the small surplus of R134 000 originally budgeted for. This surplus will be transferred to the Rates Equalization Fund.

Prospects for 1978-’79

Although the expected improvement in economic growth and the attendant employment opportunities it offers, should bring about an increase of some 2,5% in the utilization of commuter services during 1978-’79, a similar improvement is not foreseen in respect of main line journeys.

In contrast to the sharp rise in traffic volumes during the financial year now drawing to a close, an advance of only some 2,6% is expected during 1978-’79. The indications are that the facilities for the shipment of ore through Port Elizabeth and Saldanha Bay will be under-utilized. A smaller grain harvest is expected and although an official estimate of the maize harvest has not yet been made, the anticipated smaller crop will also result in a decline in exports.

On the other hand, coal export capacity at Richards Bay is already being fully utilized and expansion of facilities will be necessary in 1978-’79. The expectation is that approximately 14,6 million tons of coal will be exported through Richards Bay and Durban in the coming year. This represents an increase of 13% on the tonnage for 1977-’78, and no less than 85% on the 1976-’77 volume. On the basis of the growth rates expected in 1978 in respect of industrial production, retail and wholesale trade and consumer spending, high-rated traffic should increase by 3,6% from the relatively low level reached in 1977-’78.

It is also expected that the present traffic growth experienced on the international air routes will continue in 1978-’79. The expected improvement in the South African economy can also have a positive effect on the utilization of the domestic services of South African Airways.

Rates Review

Taking into account the projected traffic volumes, the revenue that would be derived during the coming financial year, should rates and fares remain at their present levels, is estimated at R2 879,5 million. With expenditure expected to rise to some R3 121,1 million, it is clear that the results of working would show a shortfall of approximately R241,6 million. Mr. Speaker, I realize only too well what influence increased transport costs have on the economy of our country, particularly in the present inflationary circumstances. Unfortunately the South African Railways is also a victim of inflation. In order to balance revenue with expenditure, as I am by law compelled to do, additional revenue of approximately 8,6% will have to be found and I have no alternative but to effect increases in rates and fares with effect from 1 April 1978.

In pursuance of accepted policy to rationalize tariffs progressively, it is desirable that the Railways should accelerate the implementation of a more cost-orientated tariff structure by increasing rates on low-rated traffic by a substantially higher margin than on high-rated commodities. However, in view of the present economic climate, and in particular the effects such a move would have on the expected economic upturn, I deem it advisable, for the present, to subordinate railway to national interest and to keep the increases on a more even level throughout.

In the light of the foregoing, I now provide details of the more important adjustments.

Passenger traffic is still showing a considerable loss. However, having regard to the adverse effects of previous adjustments, fares in respect of both main line and suburban journeys are increased for all classes by 6% only.

The rates for mail and parcels traffic are increased by 10%, while the minimum parcels rate will be R1 per consignment.

With regard to goods services, the rates for high-rated traffic are increased on average by 10,7%, varying from 10% for tariff class 1 to 11,4% for tariff class 10. Regarding low-rated traffic, the average increase is 11,6% and the variation 10,7% for tariff class 11 to 12% for tariff class 15.

Last year I envisaged a tariff rebate on traffic conveyed in block loads. It has accordingly been decided to introduce, with effect from 1 April 1978, a railage rebate of 5% on traffic conveyed in block loads from one private siding to another. As the block load principle applies mainly to raw materials which are price sensitive and on which the cumulative effect of a rates review could be considerable, the advantage of this rebate system is obviously of great value to the community. In the case of coal, for instance, the increase will be only 6,4% in comparison with the increase of 12% for tariff class 15.

The export of iron ore is of particular importance to the country and the Railways, and the special rates to Port Elizabeth are thus increased by 8% only. However, the special export rates on manganese ore are increased by 12%.

As these special rates are already based on block load working the 5% rebate will not be applicable. Rates which are, in terms of existing contracts, adjusted annually on an escalation formula are not affected by the rates review or by the principle of block load working.

Normal departmental cartage rates are increased by 10%. For economic reasons the container cartage rates will be increased by varying percentages.

The special rates on containers conveyed by unit trains between the container terminals at Durban and City Deep, are increased by 12,5%.

The 5 or 10% rate discount presently allowed on private I.S.O. containers, packed and/or unpacked in the Republic, is being withdrawn. This discount is not allowed on containers moving at box rates. In order to maintain parity between the cost of hiring private containers and the use of Sartainers, a hire charge, which varies according to distance and thus relates to time, is being introduced on Sartainers.

As regards livestock, the rates for large and small animals are increased by 9 and 10%, respectively. The reason for the slightly higher percentage in respect of small animals is that, on account of the smaller mass, their conveyance is less economic. However, in order to improve this situation the use of double-deck trucks for small animals is being considered in collaboration with the main users. Should the use of such trucks prove to be practical and economical, a railage rebate will be granted.

Tariffs for miscellaneous services on rail and road transport are increased by varying percentages depending upon the economics of the services rendered. Documentation charges are increased by 50c per consignment, still leaving this fee well below the cost of the service provided. This is also the position with handling charges which are increased by 13c per 100 kilogram—handling charges are of course only applicable when customers require the Railways to handle low-rated traffic. Demurrage is increased by 10%.

The charges for catering services are increased on average by only 5%.

The fares for first and third class passengers on the road transport services are increased by 6% and the rates on mail and parcels by 10%, on goods by 10,9% and on livestock by 10%.

As ad valorem charges keep pace with rising prices, wharf age will not be increased. Tug charges, carnage and port dues are lagging considerably behind economic levels, and are being increased by 23,6; 17,3 and 20%, respectively. Charges for the handling of traffic at bulk-handling installations are increased by 15% in respect of Durban and 9% at Port Elizabeth, with a slight increase in respect of the installation at Saldanha Bay. The average increase amounts to 4,9%.

Lighthouse levies are increased by 7,7%.

Harbour revenue from other miscellaneous sources is increased by 14,8%.

On average all harbour charges reflect an increase of 5%.

Rates on pipeline products are being adjusted in line with the applicable rail rate.

Air fares on domestic services are increased by 6% and the rates for air-freight by 10%.

It should not be necessary for me to say that the decision to increase rates was taken wit the greatest reluctance and that every endeavour has been made to limit the increases as far as possible.

The adjustments have been planned with circumspection and in the light of the Department’s intimate involvement in and knowledge of all sectors of the national economy. At the same time it must be borne in mind that the Department also has a responsibility towards its employees and care has had to be taken to minimize the adverse effects of the increases not only on the economy and the public in general but also on railway revenue.

The fact that the average increase in revenue of 8,6% due to the rates review is well below the current level of the inflation rate, is proof of the responsible attitude and the financial discipline displayed by the national transport organization. I wish to direct a sincere appeal to Commerce and Industry in general to display the same degree of responsibility in considering any consequential price adjustments.

Furthermore, in order to keep the rates increase at the lowest possible level, the Railways exploited the only alternative to balance its books, namely to contain expenditure.

Hon. members will be aware of the positive and successful steps taken, particularly during the current year, to curb expenditure. This was done at a time in which the prices of other services and commodities were constantly increasing. In view of the services the Railways renders, there is hardly a consumer item which it does not have to buy in the course of its daily activities.

That the Department has been able to keep expenditure within reasonable limits and, in fact, effect a net saving of some R89,3 million on the expenditure forecast for 1977-’78, thereby postponing the need for an early tariff increase, is a remarkable achievement in the circumstances. Whilst it will be difficult to cut expenditure substantially, the Department will continue in its efforts towards effecting further economies.

I should also point out to hon. members that the additional revenue expected to be derived from the rates adjustments does not take into account any further salary or wage adjustments that could result from the present disputes.

Mr. Speaker, these rates and fares adjustments are expected to yield additional revenue of the order of R241,4 million, which will bring the total anticipated revenue for 1978-’79 to about R3 120,9 million. Overall expenditure for the year is estimated at R3 121,1 million, leaving on balance a small deficit of R168 000.

Appreciation

It is particularly gratifying that the Railways has been able to make ends meet in spite of the prevailing unfavourable economic conditions. This is a commendable achievement which could only have been attained by a combined and co-ordinated effort in all spheres of our organization. I wish to express my thanks to the General Manager and every member of the staff for the diligence displayed during the past year. I am also indebted to the Railway Commissioners for the way in which they have assisted me.

Tabling

I now lay on the Table a Memorandum setting out the estimated results of working for the financial year 1977-’78, and anticipated revenue and expenditure for the year 1978-’79, together with the latest traffic and other statistics.

I also lay on the Table Statements of the Estimated Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1979, and Statements of the Original and Revised Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1978.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the usual calm tone of the hon. the Minister as he presented a record budget of R4,258 billion, something like 18% up on last year. He detailed the achievements of the Railway Administration over the last year, and much of what he put forward indeed constitute a very proud record of achievement. The operations at Richards Bay and Saldanha and in connection with containerization all constitute a record of success. But then we came down to the harsh realities. Perhaps naïvely we had expected some relief with the advent of Richards Bay working to capacity, with Saldanha Bay almost working to capacity and with containerization which was supposed to be of immense benefit to the country in that it was going to save us money. But yet we are being subjected to further tariff increases of 8,6%. I think it is necessary to remind the House of just how many tariff increases we have had over the last two years. On 1 April 1976 tariffs were increased by an average of 11,2%; on 1 September 1976 by a further 9,4%; last year by 14,6% and this year, now, by 8,6%.

That is a three-year period you are talking about.

It is three years, but it actually happened over a two-year period.

It feels like a lifetime!

Yes, it feels like a lifetime.

If one takes the beginning of 1976 as the index, the hon. the Minister knows that tariff increases have been something like 50% during that period. Nevertheless, the hon. the Minister proudly said to us that he had managed this year to keep the tariff increases below the inflation rate. I can tell the hon. the Minister that 50% over two years—he said three years—is in fact above the inflation rate, in spite of the many things that have been done by the Administration to try to improve efficiency. Well, this is a harsh and unpleasant budget which might well have very serious consequences for South Africa as a whole. The hon. the Minister knows only too well—and has said so—that railways and tariff increases are usually the start of a further inflationary spiral. Everything has to be transported.

One looks at the way in which the hon. the Minister has knocked the agricultural community, and he seems to have done so fairly strongly. One realizes that this has to carry right through. First the farmer pays, and finally the consumer has to pay. One looks also at our troubled steel industry. Iron ore is going to cost considerably more now to transport to the coast. The hon. the Minister knows full well that we are already having difficulty in selling our iron ore in the international market.

Much of the hon. the Minister’s trouble seems to stem from the necessity to finance internally many of the capital needs of the Administration. One realizes his difficulties. One realizes that when one cannot get overseas capital, or any capital, any loan capital, to finance necessary developments, one has to find it oneself. However, the net result is that South Africa is going to have to pay for the situation in which we find ourselves at the moment.

The ripple effect through the economy is going to be serious. The hon. the Minister of Finance must be feeling very depressed indeed about this budget, because he knows that he is going to have difficulty now in containing the overall inflationary spiral.

As I have said, much of what the hon. the Minister has put forward was a proud record of achievement by the Administration. However, can we go on like this? Can South Africa afford to go on like this? We hope to get some answers to this when we discuss the budget more fully next week. With those few words I would now like to move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members are already aware that the hon. the Minister of Finance has increased the scale of customs and excise duty on certain petroleum products by 0,425 cents per litre. This took place on 15 July 1977. This increase accrues to the National Road Fund, a fund established in terms of section 2 of the National Roads Act—Act No. 54 of 1971. Section 2 of Act No. 54 of 1971, as amended, provides which part of the customs and excise duty on petroleum products may be paid into the National Road Fund as a charge to the State Revenue Fund and therefore it is necessary to amend section 2 of the National Roads Act accordingly. The amount of 2,154 cents is now substituted by 2,579 cents and this is made retrospective from 15 July 1977 to correspond with the increase approved by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a sense of relief to the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister. Looking at the increase of ,425 cents to the National Road Fund, one wondered whether this was perhaps going to be a precursor to a rise in the price of fuel. I am very glad indeed to hear that the hon. the Minister has this afternoon had a little good news for us, and that this increase simply means that the contribution to the National Road Fund is being upped by means of a rise in the price of fuel that has already been put forward. Having heard those words of reassurance from the hon. the Minister, I would like to say that we in the Official Opposition will support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, my party will be supporting this Bill. I would like to say how pleased we are to see that an increased proportion of the levy on petrol is to go to the National Road Fund. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister is aware that there is some very pressing work required throughout the country. With this additional money now going to the National Road Fund, I am sure that a lot of people are going to be very pleased that some of these pressing problems will be able to be solved in the near future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the Third Reading stage of a Bill which we have debated over several days in this House. I must say at once that we are going to oppose the Third Reading. No amendments were accepted at the Committee Stage which would make any difference to our attitude to the Bill, although the hon. member for Mooi River has extracted a promise from the hon. the Minister to consider amendments in the Other Place. The point which I think we ought to remember is that this is a Bill aimed at changing the methods of election to the community councils. It is not a Bill which is going to change the intrinsic value of a council. It is simply tinkering with the mechanism whereby people will be elected to that council. For those reasons we do not therefore believe that this Bill advances in any way the objectives which the Minister has said he holds, and which I am quite sure he does hold, i.e. of improving the relationship between the Government and the people of Soweto. This Bill affects the whole question of the acceptability of the community council system, and I have to stress again that it is that system that we have to take into consideration, and not any system which is still the brainchild of the hon. the Minister, a brainchild, I may say, which is still in the process of gestation. He referred to this brainchild during the Committee Stage yesterday. Had the hon. the Minister come to this House with a Bill which was fundamentally going to change the whole set-up of the community council system, turning it into a proper urban or town council for the inhabitants of the urban townships, with the same fundamental rights that other town councils have in regard to funding, home ownership, elections, rating, a proper business centre, etc., we would have had a very different attitude towards such a Bill.

You would still have voted against it.

The hon. the Minister says we have to get there, but I suggest that the way to get there is, firstly, to win the confidence of the people who live in those townships.

That is what I am trying to do.

Yes, I know. I am absolutely prepared to give the hon. the Minister full credit for his sincerity. I have no doubt about that. I believe, however, that he is going about this the wrong way. I have mentioned to him before that he will not get the confidence, either of the people of Soweto or of any of the other urban townships which are resisting the community council system, by simply forging ahead with a system which they have so clearly rejected. I think that the hon. the Minister is deceiving himself if he believes that he is going to have any more success with by-elections than he has had with the general elections. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. the Minister can really believe that a less than 5% poll can be considered as representative. I am sure that he cannot really believe that. It is just not possible. Nor do I believe that the people of Soweto, for example, will consider that those councillors who were elected on a less than 5% poll, can be representative.

I do not believe that the hon. the Minister can genuinely feel that unopposed seats for the community council election can be put on the same basis as unopposed seats for election, shall we say, to this Parliament. That was, however, the comparison he drew. After all, the election of members to this House has been done according to a system which has long been accepted by the White electorate of South Africa. We know that they have accepted that system, and therefore when members are returned unopposed it means, of course, that those seats are considered so safe that there is no point in any party opposing either the incumbent of the seat or any candidate who is standing for a particular party. I do not think that can be said, however, in the case of the unopposed seats in the community council elections in Soweto. Quite a different situation obtained, and the hon. the Minister was told in no uncertain terms that the people of Soweto were not interested in this particular system. Many months elapsed between the passing of the Community Councils Bill in June of last year in this House and the time of the election, i.e. in February of this year. During that time there was, in the Press, article upon article representing African opinion and making it very clear that the councils were not accepted, certainly not by the residents of Soweto. I therefore do not believe that the hon. the Minister can possibly draw an analogy between unopposed seats in the elections for community councils generally and unopposed seats for election to this House.

I believe, as I have said, that the hon. the Minister honestly seeks a solution to our problems as far as race relations in South Africa are concerned, but I do feel that he is obstinate in that he insists on treading the same thorny path used by his predecessor, instead of doing the sensible thing and accepting the reality of the situation, which is that the system which was advanced by his predecessor has been rejected by the people to whom it is to apply, and therefore turning over a new leaf, abandoning the system and commencing a new era altogether. Let him not only change the name of his department, but let him change also the policy of that department. That means setting out a new blueprint altogether for local government for the Africans of the urban townships. It should be a system which is based far more closely on the system which applies to White town councils throughout the country.

I believe that this hon. Minister will not enhance his image with a Bill in which he tries to fix the unfixable. I believe it is an exercise in futility for him just to come to the House to tinker with the method of election or of nomination of members to the council and hope that that will †It the bill. It is simply not going to work.

I am sure the hon. the Minister meant it when he said the other day that he intends to make Soweto a beautiful place. I believe it will, however, be much more difficult than he probably imagines. It will need an awful lot of groundwork before that great sprawling ugly township can be turned into a beautiful place. However, I have no doubt that he is going to try, but in that regard I have to tell him that he must also make it functional, he must make it work. The only way in which he can do that is to get the confidence and cooperation of the million-odd inhabitants of that huge sprawling Black city just outside Johannesburg. The way to do that, I believe, is to consult with the recognized leaders of the people—and that of course means that I must again use this opportunity to try to persuade the hon. the Minister to influence his colleague, the Minister of Police, to release those persons being held in detention since last year … [Interjections.] … and to judge them for himself. He must not simply go by hearsay reports about these people, but he must sit down at a table with the Committee of Ten and also with the persons who are responsible for the committee that was handling education in the townships to discuss the matter with them and to see whether he cannot get their co-operation.

On whose behalf are you speaking now?

If the hon. the Minister does that, I have no doubt that he will have some hope of making a council system work—the present system, as I have said, needs fundamental changes. I do not believe the Bill is the vehicle for that particular objective, and we shall vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, if one listens to the hon. member for Houghton, if one listens to the objections which she raised during the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage, and one notes that she has now indicated that the PFP will oppose the Third Reading as well, it is clear that she wants to give the House and the country to understand that there is only one area which should be taken into account, and that is the Soweto area. If one listens to her, there seem to be no other Black people and no other administration boards in the country, whereas there are in fact 22 administration boards. But every time the hon. member gets up in the House, she uses only Soweto and the people of Soweto as an example, on the basis of which members then reveal their attitude.

That is what this Bill is all about.

I want to put it very plainly and unequivocally to the hon. member that a very large percentage of the people of Soweto, thousands of them, do not agree with the attitude the hon. member adopts in this House. They do not agree with it at all, and I shall prove it.

They do not like her!

Now the hon. member comes here and says that the hon. the Minister merely wants to change the method according to which a community council is composed. She has said: “He is tampering with the methods; he is tampering with the machinery.” But I think the hon. the Minister is quite correct. The Act was placed on the Statute Book last year to bestow great benefits on the Black man in the urban areas. That is the whole objective of the Act. But it appeared that there were inherent problems in the machinery created in the Act. I also want to stress that the NP is in favour of a democratic system and therefore believes that the representatives of those people in their councils and townships should be elected in a strictly democratic way. It is for that reason that the Minister has come forward with this amendment. In spite of the fact that he had the right and the power to appoint people if the necessary members were not elected, he is now giving these voters, the inhabitants of the areas in question, the right to elect their own people where they had previously failed to elect representatives, or where any representatives had resigned.

The hon. members on the opposite side are the people who go from one platform to another, shouting that they are the great apostles who safeguard human rights. But if one wants to bestow rights on people and offer them the opportunity of establishing their own council, these people object. What are we aiming at with this amendment? With this amendment we intend affording those people an opportunity to appoint their own councils. That hon. member said that the councils would not “get off the ground”. That is not true. I am going to prove the opposite. I am going to furnish her with examples of places where such councils have already been elected. Such a council already exists in the Vaal Triangle and such a council also exists in Bloemfontein. I want to show that hon. member exactly how these people in these areas feel about these councils. She wants to be the mouthpiece of the Black people; in fact, she wants to be the mouthpiece of the ringleaders among the Black people, and then South Africa is supposed to accept that all the Black people feel the same way as the few ringleaders with whom she always has dealings.

On 8 December last year, the first community council for the Vaal Triangle was established by the predecessor of this hon. Minister. It is a council consisting of 36 elected members. That hon. member kicked up a fuss because there was a low percentage poll in some of the wards during the elections in Soweto. During the election of members for the community council of the Vaal Triangle, the percentage polls in the wards where members were elected, varied from 28% to 44%. A large percentage of those members were elected unopposed. Surely they also have the right to claim for themselves what that hon. member arrogates to herself when she has been elected unopposed. If, in such a case, she claims that she would have polled 70% to 75% of the votes, then the members of that council who were elected unopposed, also have the right to claim that they represent 70% to 80% of the voters.

That council made use of the machinery which was created when the councils were created and they accordingly requested that certain powers and duties be conferred upon them. The hon. the Minister and his department did not dawdle over their request. These powers and duties were given to that Council and that community council is functioning beautifully. I want to quote what the chairman of that community council said a few days ago. The chairman of that council is not an irresponsible person. He is Mr. George Thabe, a very responsible Black inhabitant of South Africa who was unanimously elected by the members to be chairman of that council.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether any of the leaders of the Vaal-Vereniging Triangle area to whom he is referring, were locked up?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member wants to know whether any of the leaders of the Black community in the Vaal triangle were locked up. No, Mr. Speaker, the leaders of the Black community of the Vaal triangle are responsible people who do not allow themselves to be influenced by people like the hon. member for Houghton and others. That is the difference. [Interjections.] We are dealing with responsible people and we also have responsible people in Soweto. I shall come back to this point.

As I have said, the man who has been elected, is a very responsible person. He is also the president of the S.A. Soccer Federation. He was unanimously elected as chairman by that council of 36 members. They are also happy with the powers which they requested and which have been given to them. They dealt with their first budget a week or two ago. These are the so-called “puppets” and “stooges” which those hon. members are always trying to make them out to be. They discussed their own budget and in terms of the powers and the duties given to them, they will make decisions about their own residential areas and related matters, about their own people and about their own interests. That budget is for the sitting of houses, the building of houses, the provision of sporting facilities, the building of schools and so on. The budget amounts to more than R27 million and that community council has accepted this responsibility and has discharged its obligations. These are now the “puppets”, the “stooges” to whom the hon. members have referred. I want to quote part of what Mr. Thabe said when he addressed the Administration Board in connection with the budget of the community council and about the powers and duties delegated to them. He said, inter alia, the following on submitting the part appropriation of R27 million out of a total budget of R48 million—

Hon. members must please bear with me for reading with some difficulty, but the light is bad—

In other words, this man said, at the very first opportunity that he had of addressing the administration board, that not only does he speak to his friends, but also to his equals. He therefore regards them as people with whom he is going to co-operate. Yet that hon. member always tries to imply that these people are the fools, the “stooges”. This man goes further and thanks the administration board, the executive committee and the officials for the co-operation and the support, which they received from those people who are guiding them along a course so that they may be happy in the urban Bantu areas. That is the attitude which this responsible man adopts. He went on in that vein. I can give the hon. members his verbatim speech. He said moreover that their attitude, as a community council, was not going to be to oust the Whites from the administration board. He said that even at that juncture, in a time of unemployment, when Black people could not obtain employment, they wanted to retain the officials of the administration board. He said the people would be retained there as long as it was possible to do so, because they were knowledgeable people, people who had acquired experience over the years, and they wanted to make use of these people’s expertize and wanted their assistance so that they can make success of the business. That is how the chairman of that council saw it. He said further—

He admitted that the laws of the country which were made here by us, were necessary to ensure proper authority in the country. This man also said that he and the executive committee of his community council wanted to uphold the laws of the country. He said that if there were laws about which they did not feel happy and which in their view were unjust, they would negotiate on them through the correct channels. He said it should then be their task and their duty to be able to convince the Government of the country that they felt unhappy about certain laws and that certain laws were of a discriminatory nature. He said this as a responsible person and also intimated that they would make use of the correct channels. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she has any objection to a council which holds this view, a council which says they will make use of the correct channels, or does she want them to revolt? Does she want them to violate the laws of the country so that anarchy prevails and steps have to be taken against the people and arrests have to be made? Does she want such conditions, or does she want properly elected community councils such as those we have mentioned?

That council appreciates the responsibility which has been placed on their shoulders. As they were the first community council in the country, they want the assistance of the administration board so that they can make a success of their task. They also say that they will be extremely circumspect, as they will be the people who will take the first steps along the road of governing their own people to a certain extent. The chairman has intimated that he realizes that it would be a difficult task so to orientate their people that they would realize that whereas the Government has for the past 300 years built the roads, schools, and houses and has performed all the other tasks, it will in future be their task to build the houses and roads themselves, and be themselves responsible for a happy community in the Black townships. That is the attitude of this man. He says that they realize the responsibility which rests on them, especially in view of the fact that there are critics who think that they are experts in every field, people who would very much like to cause this system to fail. That is the attitude and the spirit which prevails there. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that this healthy spirit which exists in the Vaal Triangle, will also exist in the other administration board areas. The hon. member is so obsessed with Soweto. What did Mr. Mhlungu, the chairman of the Soweto Residents’ Committee, say after Mr. Thabe had released a Press statement that certain powers and duties had been conferred upon their community council and which they could implement in their own residential areas? Originally, the Soweto Residents’ Committee were to have put up 30 candidates, but they insisted at the time that they wanted full city status and consequently they did not put up any candidates. After he had seen what powers and duties had been bestowed upon the community council of the Vaal Triangle, Mr. Mhlungu, according to a report under the headline “Deurbraak, sê Soweto Leiers” in Die Transvaler of 22 February 1978, said: “Dit is presies wat ons wou gehad het.” He went on to say that the Minister had made a tremendous breakthrough and that they were happy with the powers and duties which had been conferred on this community council. Nevertheless the hon. member for Houghton says that the system will never get off the ground in Soweto. Since this community council of the Vaal Triangle has accepted that the administration board will be their executive arm, Mr. Mhlungu has intimated that they will also need the assistance and knowledge of the administration board.

We are growing sick and tired of people like the hon. member for Houghton and people who think as she does, people who always profess to be the sacred patrons of democracy in South Africa and who, whenever the Government tries to create sound inter-group relations, arrogate to themselves the right to criticize and to say that the Government is on the wrong path. Day after day they encourage the militants, who do not want to co-operate in any case, by saying that they must not accept the system which the Government is offering them, but should rebel against it.

South Africa is tired of such people. That is why they sit here with their meagre representation of 17 members in a Parliament which consists of 165 members.

Order! Before I call upon the next speaker to take the floor …

[Inaudible.]

Order! Surely the hon. member knows better than to make interjections when the Chair is speaking?

*I have allowed the two main speakers on both sides of the House a reasonable measure of latitude, but I wish to remind hon. members that the Bill before the House is not concerned with the principle or with the functions of community councils. From now on hon. members must confine themselves to elections, especially by-elections.

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping you would say that after I had addressed the House! However, I accept the restrictions that have been laid upon us.

I was interested to hear the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark quote the words of Mr. George Thabe, because in 1974 I had the opportunity of travelling with him in Germany when the World Cup football series were being played. I found him a most levelheaded and responsible person, who had done a tremendous deal in this country to normalize relationships in the sporting world. If that council is in his hands, it is in very good hands.

There are several councils which are working and the council in particular of which we have heard today has taken upon itself considerable responsibilities and is expending a considerable amount of money. However, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark failed to indicate the measure of the problem the hon. the Minister faces in that Soweto has not taken this system to its heart, but has in fact placed very considerable stumbling blocks in the way of its implementation. We have supported the Second Reading of this Bill and in supporting its Third Reading as well, I want to make it quite clear that the hon. the Minister now holds in his hands the ability to persuade the people of Soweto that he is absolutely genuine in his intentions towards them. In a place like Soweto, which has been under such considerable pressures over the last couple of years with the riots that took place there and where a considerable extent of law enforcement had to be used to preserve law and order, one can hardly expect that any kind of system which could be given the appearance of something the Government is forcing upon them, to win general acceptance from the people in that area. The result of the elections must have been a considerable disappointment to the hon. the Minister and his department. However, in terms of this Bill he now has the power to make it possible to hold by-elections. I was concerned to see that there were power groups—I refer to the Inkatha movement for one—which took a very decided attitude towards the elections in Soweto. The hon. the Minister recently had the chance to meet Chief Gatsha Buthelezi in Cape Town and to discuss the elections in Soweto with him. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us, when he replies to the Third Reading debate, whether any progress has been made in those discussions towards bringing the Inkatha movement around to give its support to these elections. A system like this must inevitably limp. There must be instances where it will fail or baulk at hurdles.

However, we in this party would like to think that we are giving the hon. the Minister’s the chance to put right whatever attitude may have led to the attitude adopted by the people of Soweto in not supporting the elections. I think it is basically a condition of mind. It is the mental attitude of the people there towards the Government and the White man in general—to all of us, whatever party we belong to. There is a block in communication between the Government representing the White community in the country and the people of Soweto.

I feel that this Bill will put into the hon. the Minister’s hands the chance to at least make an attempt to put right something I regard as very grave indeed. For that reason and as I have indicated before, we shall support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP displayed a very responsible attitude to this Bill throughout. I am not saying this because they support us, one does not only show responsibility by supporting this side of the House. In one’s opposition one can also act in a responsible manner. Yesterday the hon. member for Mooi River, who has just resumed his seat, proposed an amendment which I believe was very sincerely meant to improve the Bill. When the hon. the Minister pointed out his problems to him, and explained why he could not accept the amendment, the hon. member was responsible enough to withdraw his amendment. That made a very good impression on us. That was not the case with the Official Opposition. They displayed an amazing kind of logic during this debate. They performed a complete egg-dance, and at the end of this debate they stand indicted before the Black man and before the world for not serving the interests of the Black man because they opposed this Bill.

The hon. the Minister made two requests to this House in his Second Reading speech two weeks ago. Firstly, he requested that the Bill be supported so that the Blacks in White areas could be represented by elected representatives and not by appointed ones. Then the hon. the Minister also made a second, a very urgent plea to this House, and consequently also to the Opposition. He requested that all three stages of the Bill be disposed of on the same day. He made that request for obvious reasons. Now, one week later, we are still ruminating on the same Bill and it is still not a law of Parliament. To both these very urgent requests by the hon. the Minister, the reply of the Official Opposition was “No”, an emphatic, unequivocal, cold Molotov “No”. They said “No” to the extension of the democratic principle to millions of Black people in White areas in more than 300 Black residential areas. They said “No” to the rights of the Black man to decide for himself who his representatives must be. “No,” said the Opposition, “You cannot decide for yourselves. It should be the Minister’s prerogative to decide who your representatives should be in the case of a by-election and any chance vacancies.” It was an astounding attitude that the Official Opposition displayed.

The principle of the Bill is very simple: we prefer elected people, people who were democratically elected, to representatives who were autocratically appointed. Now I should like to ask the Official Opposition: Do you support this principle or not? There is a deadly silence, for of course they have already told us what their attitude is. They voted against it, and they are going to vote against it again, because they do not support this principle. That is their very clear answer. When I look at the back benches of the Official Opposition, I ask myself a question which I have asked myself so often during the past few weeks, i.e.: What hold has the hon. member for Houghton on those hon. members? What magnetic influence emanates from that hon. member? What power does that hon. member possess that enables her to persuade people to vote against the Bill? It simply passes all understanding. If one says “No” to elected representatives, one also says “Yes” to something else. And the Official Opposition said “Yes” to the principle in the principal Act that the Minister should have the power to appoint people autocratically. They said “Yes” to the hon. the Minister’s appointing puppets and his being able to pull the strings at will; they said “Yes” to the appointment of people who will constantly be saying to him: “Yes, master; very good, master; all right, master. If the master so wishes, we will do so, master.” [Interjections.]

Was that the initial intention?

They said “Yes” to the obsolete colonial principle according to which some outside power has to tell people who should represent them, how they should be governed and what would be good for them. When I consider the attitude of the Official Opposition and the hold and influence of the hon. member for Houghton on that party, I really get the impression—in the idiom of this Bill—that members who sit there in the back benches are not proud people who got there under their own steam, that they are not people who have at least achieved something in life, that they are not people who can say: “I am my own man and I think for myself.” One gets the impression that they are nominated members, people who will curry favour with the hon. member for Houghton, people who are just soft clay in the hands of the hon. member for Houghton to be shaped, moulded and manipulated by her exactly as she pleases. [Interjections.]

Because the Official Opposition rejects this Bill, they stand indicted before the Black man and before the world today and they can no longer pose as the champions of the Black man. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has told us how often those people come forward in this House and pretend to be the advocates, the champions of the Black man in South Africa. Their conduct and their opposition to this Bill have indicated that the hon. members of the Official Opposition are not competent to speak on behalf of the Black man. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, we have come to the end of the debate on this Bill and I wish to endorse what the hon. member for Port Natal has said, that it is the fault of the Official Opposition that we only come to the Third Reading of the Bill today. After this I still have to introduce the Bill in the Other Place. This naturally entails a considerable delay in the possibility of elections in Soweto. The fault for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the Official Opposition. I purposely requested in my Second Reading speech that we should dispose of all the different stages of the Bill on one day, because I thought it would be in the interests of Soweto. The hon. Official Opposition, however, decided otherwise. That is why I place the blame squarely on their shoulders. I wish to thank the hon. members for Port Natal and Vanderbijlpark, who have very ably stated the case here. They are both people who not only have experience in these matters, but can also speak with authority. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark lives in a community where the community councils have been very effectively elected and furthermore are functioning very effectively at present.

I intend paying a visit to the Vaal Triangle as soon as possible, in order to meet the members of the community council there and to have personal discussions with them so as to establish closer contact with the real elected leaders of the community. I thank the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark for his able contribution.

I also thank the hon. member for Mooi River for his party’s responsible standpoint in this debate. I appreciate it sincerely. Their contribution is an example of how an Opposition Party in a country ought to act. That is effective opposition, and not a mere opposing of everything. The hon. member for Mooi River asked me whether I had discussed the whole matter regarding community councils with Chief Buthelezi during our discussion. Yes, we did discuss the matter. We exchanged ideas about the matter, but in the nature of the matter—and the hon. member will not blame me for it—I must say that it was a confidential conversation, a conversation at which only Chief Buthelezi and I were present. There was nobody else with us. I do not want to betray Chief Buthelezi’s confidence. For that reason I do not want to supply any further information in connection with this matter. But we did talk about the matter and I shall, from the nature of things, follow up the conversation when I again have a talk with him, probably at the opening of his Parliament later this year. I am to officiate at the opening of his Parliament personally this year. We shall meet each other again and have further talks.

Is there an indication that the Inkatha movement has now changed its attitude towards the election in Soweto?

I should rather not talk about this aspect now, because it is rather sensitive. I do not want to damage the position of trust existing between me and Chief Buthelezi in any way. I think it is in the interests of all of us to maintain and respect it. Therefore I do not want to say anything further about the matter now.

Mr. Speaker, I now come to the standpoint of the Official Opposition. I want to say immediately that we were aware in advance of the fact that the Opposition would take up the attitude they did, because they oppose everything introduced by the Government in connection with non-White matters. They oppose everything, because the success of the policy of this side of the House makes the continued existence of the Opposition and their policies impossible in the future. Those are surely the facts. If our policy succeeds, there is no place for an Opposition like them in South Africa. The community which they want to serve, will then no longer be in existence, because we will then have solved the problem regarding them. They are therefore fighting for their continued existence and for their lives. That is why we get resistance from them to every positive step which we take in this country to solve our problems.

I want to reply immediately to a few points which the hon. member for Houghton has put to me. She makes it quite clear that power should be transferred to these people. She says these people must be given a full-fledged city council, etc. I want to ask the hon. member: Is there a single provision or hindrance in this Bill, as it reads at present, which prevents the Minister from conferring full powers on that council?

But you have not done so.

I am asking: Is there a single limitation in the Bill which prevents me from doing so. The answer is “No”.

The people want a different sort of system.

Sir, I should have liked to have had a “different” member for Houghton, but I cannot always have my own way.

They do not want these favours you give out. They want that as of right.

In all fairness to the hon. member, I want to say that there is not a single provision in this Bill or in the principal Act which restrains the Minister from conferring all powers on these people. But it is only logical and sensible that one should confer powers in accordance as powers are used and handled. Nobody precipitately hands over powers to an organization if one does not know whether or not it can handle them. That is only logical.

The Bantu urban councils had the same powers … [Interjections.]

The hon. member has talked about “confidence and co-operation”. She has suggested that I should aspire to that. That is precisely what I am busy trying to do. I have already been busy with that since my first day in this position. From that very first day I set it as my task to do it. But the hon. member has up to now done very little to help me succeed. On the contrary. From the very first day until today, she has done nothing but place obstacles in my path. That should not go unnoticed. The standpoint of the hon. member for Houghton is that the Committee of Ten must be released because they are the only leaders of Soweto.

I never said that.

Just the other day the hon. member said the leaders were all in jail. Now I put it quite plainly, Sir. The leaders of Soweto will now be brought to the fore by means of these elections. I realize, Sir, that I am now treading on ground on which I have to be careful not to clash with you. If the Official Opposition now votes against this Bill, then they vote against the extension of democracy to the Black man in South Africa. [Interjections.] I say so because the sole aim of this Bill is to confer a democratic right on the inhabitants of Soweto to elect their own people by means of by-elections. That is something which the Act does not now give them. This is therefore an extension of democracy, and if the Opposition votes against it, they vote against the extension of democratic rights to Soweto. This is the principle, and this, in my view, is what the headlines should be in tomorrow’s newspapers.

Talking of newspapers, Sir, permit me to quote something in connection with this matter. The role which the Opposition is playing, is to do nothing to help us win the friendship and confidence of the Black people of Soweto. Allow me to digress for a moment and to say that surely it is in the interests of every person in South Africa that the Government of the day—whatever party it might be—must find a good basis for co-operation with the Black people of South Africa. Is that not in everybody’s interest? Is petty politicking, then, more important than the interests of South Africa?

No.

Those hon. members want to attack this party and at certain persons, and in the process, the country is suffering damage. That is definitely what those hon. members are doing. The same role is in a certain sense also being played by sections of the Press. Last Wednesday, a morning paper published a report on the Soweto matter. They also referred to the community councils and obtained the comments of certain leaders. They asked me, too, for my comment. The newspaper in question quoted the comments of Mr. Albert Mhlungu, as follows—

That was last week—

That was what Mr. Mhlungu said. My comment was then asked for. I assumed that we were dealing here with patriotic newspapers which wanted to serve the interests of South Africa. Therefore, amidst all my other activities, I took the trouble to furnish detailed comment to the Press on this particular matter. I said quite a few things and I gave it to them in writing, in black and white. Inter alia, I said—

I repeat the words: “… a wider range of functions than are normally entrusted to town or city councils”. I also said—

That was the comment which I gave to the Press. But of all that comment, what did they publish? Only this—

But the rest was suppressed, totally suppressed because it did not suit them.

What newspaper was that?

It was The Cape Times, with its sister newspaper, the Rand Daily Mail, which did even less about it. Mr. Mhlungu was then good enough to be consulted. He was consulted as “chairman of the Soweto Residents Committee” and he made comment in that capacity. After the Committee Stage yesterday, during which I took a stand on the question of the ultimate autonomy of Soweto, Mr. Mhlungu once again commented, but this time either the newspaper did not consider it important enough to ask Mr. Mhlungu, or his comment was of such a nature that they did not want to use it. So Die Transvaler had to use Mr. Mhlungu’s comment, the same Mr. Mhlungu. Here is his comment in today’s issue of Die Transvaler—

The same man who was quoted last week—

This is the same man who adopted a different standpoint the previous week, not so! But this time they do not quote him—now it suits nobody to quote him, because now he is satisfied that the thing can work.

He too is still going to be handicapped in what he is trying to do.

Yes, he is still going to be handicapped for that reason. I want to continue. Mr. Moerane, a former editor of The World, said in a statement to Die Transvaler—

I have seen no comment on that, definitely not in the newspaper which quoted the same people last week when they had reacted negatively. Now they are dead quiet all of a sudden. Sir, every attempt which is made to obtain peace and co-operation, is being opposed by that irresponsible Opposition and is being opposed by certain newspapers in South Africa which are unpatriotic in their actions. I think it is time that South Africa should know this and see and recognize the people for what they are.

I have not much more to say, except once again that I want to steer this Bill through the Senate as soon as possible and get it signed by the State President. I trust that I can have it disposed of in the Senate in a single day, something which I could not accomplish here due to the stubborn, pig-headed resistance by the Opposition. As soon as I have accomplished that, I am going to proclaim 19 by-elections in the 19 wards and I am going to have elections as early as possible. I also want to give another undertaking: If it is at all humanly possible, I shall personally attend the first meeting by the 30 elected members of the Soweto community council in order to make contact with those people. That I undertake here, regardless of the demands it will make on me personally. I am honest in my efforts and I trust that at some time or another the Opposition will start believing that and start co-operating with me in the interests of South Africa, and also in the interests of their children who will come after them.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, during the censure debate I was at some pains to explain to the House the attitude we in the SAP would adopt to legislation which would come before the House. I said at the time that we would try to find common ground with the Government on all matters affecting the overall security of South Africa. In my opinion and that of my colleagues this Bill is designed to protect our currency reserves from attempts to drain them by taking funds out of the country. Thus we shall support the Bill; indeed, we welcome it. We even think that it might also be a little bit late in trying to achieve its objective.

We have been able to find common ground with the Government on this measure because it is aimed at combating evasions of currency regulations and with funds being smuggled out of the country, which endanger the safety of the State. Secondly, its punitive provisions are in our opinion both reasonable and necessary and we think moreover that the deterrent effects will result in the discouragement of people who have ideas of smuggling currency out of our country and thus committing a form of economic subversion.

The Bill also illustrates to the House another aspect of our attitude to the role we can play in Parliament. It serves to show that the thinking and the political actions of the PFP are certainly not representative of a majority of South Africans: neither those South Africans who are not necessarily Government supporters on all political issues nor those who indeed do support the Government. I go so far as to say today that if a referendum were to be held among Opposition supporters in South Africa on the principles involved in this Bill and the desirability of having this Bill passed or not, the Progs, supported by their Press bosses, would not get more than 5% of all votes among Opposition supporters.

That is a wild guess.

I am glad that the NRP has taken a different stand to that taken by the Progs. The hon. member for Durban Central, who sits behind me, shares a bench with one of my colleagues. I sit in front of him, one of my colleagues sits next to him and another sits behind him. Therefore I think that he comes under good political influences and that this has possibly resulted in his deciding to support the Bill, which we of course are going to support. I may say that last year I think he would perhaps have adopted a different attitude because at that time he was geographically and also philosophically nearer to my friends sitting in this House to the right of me. Indeed, he was trying to enter into some form of legitimate or illegitimate wedlock with them.

I want to put the position of the SAP very clearly today. The Bill affects a vital aspect of our security, that is to say, our economic safety. We in these benches utterly reject the attitude of the Progs to this measure. We disagree with the attitude and their outlook on most measures, but never more so than in the field of security. Their attitude to this Bill is symptomatic of their general attitude towards security. They have an outdated and utterly unrealistic concept of what they, like parrots, are pleased to call the “rule of law”. It blinds them to the harsh realities of the world today while they still live in a dreamland of a prewar world which they think still obtains in their own philosophy. That is putting things charitably. To put things more realistically, I can say, with ample justification as well, that their attitude manifests itself most clearly in taking up cudgels for individuals and organizations, both inside and outside South Africa, who seek to overthrow law and order in our country. The pretext that they use to protect those people who seek to overthrow law and order in South Africa, is that they are standing up for their hallowed principle of the “rule of law”.

I now come to the Bill itself. The foregoing was said by way of background to the attitude of the Official Opposition to this Bill. We are fighting a battle to survive, in this case in the economic field. Economic pressures on us are growing daily because this sort of pressure is regarded by our enemies in the outside world as being the most appropriate political pressure to use against us. This Bill has been prepared only after a committee has carefully gone into the question of the evasion of currency control and offences that have been committed in that regard. It is obviously a necessary step at this stage of the existence of our country. It is more than that. It is also a reasonable measure, in the first instance, because deportation is not obligatory in respect of a currency offence. The hon. the Minister is given a discretion, and he will obviously use his discretion with discretion. Secondly, before deportation, the currency smuggling offender must have been found guilty in a court of law. Thirdly, before committing the crime the intending currency smuggler will know what penalty could be imposed on him if he were to contravene the law. Fourthly, before committing the offence the intending currency smuggler will know what punishment could be imposed on members of his family if he contravenes the law.

It has been said by some of the speakers in this debate that there should be no distinction between categories of South African citizens. It has been said, for example, that there should be no distinction between a South African by birth or by descent and a South African by way of naturalization in so far as deportation is concerned. Why ever not? South Africans by birth or descent are singularly privileged and fortunate individuals, but they are also subject to all laws of the land, except deportation. A new South African, a foreigner who has become a South African, has chosen to become a South African citizen knowing what laws will apply to him on taking up South African nationality. He will thus be aware of the provisions concerning deportation in the laws of South Africa which apply to him as a newly naturalized South African. All that this Bill does is to add another reason for deportation if a newcomer’s loyalty to South Africa is so fragile that he engages in an offence which endangers his new country’s interests in the economic field so soon after becoming a South African. What is more, the new South African and the public will be informed of the reason for his deportation. This, I think, will ensure that others do not make the same mistake of trying to smuggle currency out of South Africa to harm the economic wellbeing of all of us.

To me there is no question of undue hardship or unfair discrimination in this Bill against former foreigners, against people who I call “new South Africans”. If they respect the laws of the country they have chosen to live in, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. No penalty, in my opinion, can be too great for currency smuggling at this stage of our history. This is not only because the offence itself depletes our economic resources, but also because of the harm that it does to the morale of other South Africans when perpetrated on the scale that it has been perpetrated in recent months. The Progs have said in their arguments against the Bill that we have only seen, in the courts of South Africa, the tip of the iceberg, and I take it, from what they had to say, that they know very much more about this sort of currency evasion than I do. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: There is quite a clear insinuation in what the hon. member says and I would ask you to consider it as being out of order.

Yes. I heard what the hon. member said, and he must withdraw it.

If you order me to, I withdraw it, Sir. I want to conclude by saying that we wholly reject the views of the PFP. We do not believe that they represent the views on this issue of tens of thousands of people in opposition ranks in South Africa. We in these benches wholeheartedly support this necessary measure, and we hope that by passing it, temptation will be removed from the minds of those who care so little about their new country as recklessly to disregard the laws of the country in which they choose to live.

Mr. Speaker, if I may wish the hon. member for Simonstown well, then my wish is that he will live long enough to come to his senses and, in the first place, understand the PFP’s attitude with regard to this serious offence. In the second place, the hon. member should realize that one has to consider the merits of a matter such as this, which can entail such grave consequences for future transgressors, in a calm and sober fashion and, if possible, in humane terms. The hon. member for Simonstown is so eager to attack us who are on this side of the House that he is forgetting entirely the arguments advanced in this House yesterday by the hon. member for Constantia. Let us look at these arguments for a moment. Our argument is, quite simply, that in this particular respect, for humane and for international moral reasons, we ought not to draw a distinction between a naturalized citizen who infringes the law, and a citizen who is a South African citizen by birth and infringes the law. The hon. member for Simonstown refers to new citizens as if they had been approved by the authorities as suitable to be granted citizenship a day or two earlier. However, the person concerned may be someone who has been a naturalized citizen for as long as 25, 30 or 40 years. Such a person is not only charged, found guilty and sentenced to, say, 10 to 15 years imprisonment, in accordance with the gravity of the offence. We are in agreement with the hon. member that it is a very serious offence. Now he will not only have to serve out the prison sentence, but as soon as he is discharged from prison he can also be deported. I am not maintaining that the hon. the Minister or a future Minister will act without discretion. But the fact remains that there is a possibility that when such a person leaves prison, he can be thrown out of the country and that he can be made a stateless person—here we come to the international moral aspect of the matter …

That is not true.

It is possible that he will be unable to return to his country of origin. Many changes are taking place in the world today.

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

No. I am not prepared to answer questions. [Interjections.] I have been caught in that trap before; I shall not do it again. [Interjections.] In the past, questions were asked with the sole aim of wasting time or silencing me. That will not happen again. There is a danger that the Republic of South Africa will contribute to the existence of stateless persons …

That is not so; I emphatically deny that.

The hon. the Minister says that it cannot happen. Let me quote a very simple example and then ask the hon. the Minister whether he is still as sure as he is now. [Interjections.] An inhabitant of a country comes to South Africa, is naturalized here and thereby, of course, loses the citizenship of his country of origin. Say for example that country becomes a Cuba, a Czechoslovakia, a Yugoslavia, a Russia or a Red China.

Or a Prog South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, is that not typical of the other side? When we are concerned with this serious matter, when humanity and morality are involved and party politics as such are not relevant, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is prepared to make a joke of it. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Mossel Bay tried the same tactic. He spoke about academic quibbling about double penalties, but never got so far as trying to imagine himself in the shoes of this poor naturalized citizen who has made a mistake and has now served out his sentence. The hon. member has never got that far. I again want to put the same question: Is it not possible that we could create stateless citizens by means of this measure?

No, it is not possible.

It is possible; it is stated in the Bill.

The hon. the Minister will probably explain the matter to us in his reply. My personal conviction, however, is that we are creating a dangerous situation here.

The hon. member for Simonstown wanted to imply, directly or indirectly, that the PFP was in fact soft as regards this very serious offence.

Order! The hon. member may not say that. The hon. member for Simonstown withdrew certain words and consequently they are no longer at issue.

As you wish, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Simonstown made the same mistake as certain other members, namely to confuse the gravity of the offence—it is of course a very serious offence because it is tantamount to economic sabotage—with a party political attitude towards this legislation. All that we wish to convey to this House and the general public, is the standpoint which the hon. member for Constantia expounded so clearly yesterday, namely that our objection refers exclusively to the—in our opinion—unjustified distinction drawn between citizens born here and citizens accepted by South Africa as persons suitable to become citizens of the country. It is true, as some hon. members have said, that in certain cases naturalized citizenship can be revoked, for example where the citizen concerned is guilty of gross disloyalty to his new fatherland.

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

I am not prepared to answer questions. In any event, the question must be asked as to why all exchange control offences are put on virtually the same footing as disloyalty towards the Republic of South Africa.

What else is it then?

There are people who have not the slightest intention of acting in a fashion disloyal to South Africa, but for the profit motive, and for their own advantage, they commit this serious offence. [Interjections.] We must draw a distinction between those two; we cannot treat them alike.

If people who have come to South Africa and have been naturalized infringe the exchange control regulations, the inference is necessarily made that they are disloyal to their new fatherland. People commit offences for many reasons. It behoves none of us, least of all myself, to say that we shall never commit such a crime, however great the temptation may be to benefit ourselves. I think we should be a little more humble, show a little more humility and not lose sight of the quality of humaneness, however serious the offence committed by a person under various circumstances may be.

Mr. Speaker, we have been listening to the great patriot. I have been sitting in this House for many years, but I have very seldom heard such naïveté, ignorance and blatant nonsense in this House. I want to say to the hon. member for Johannesburg North if we are spared, he shall quite probably have the opportunity of listening to me on a number of occasions over the next few years. I shall be particularly pleased to follow him in debate. Mr. Speaker, on this occasion you will not permit me to say much about the hon. member for Johannesburg North and therefore I just want to say that I have read and heard a great deal about him, that he has often been described to me as a man with a great diversity of talents. I want to tell him that if ever there was a case of a mountain bringing forth a mouse, this was it.

In the course of this debate we have listened to all the parties. Each party has had the opportunity to put its standpoint in respect of a very small Bill, but one of special significance to everyone who regards South Africa as his fatherland. I want to say to hon. members of the NRP and to the hon. leader of the SAP that I had not the slightest doubt that they would support this Bill. I think both of those parties made very positive contributions and all of us, both inside and outside this House, are really very grateful for this. On the other hand, the Official Opposition advanced no real, substantive, legal arguments as to why we should not pass the Bill. The whole background against which those hon. members reasoned and debated is a political one, because it is owing to political reasons that they do not want to accept the Bill. The hon. member for Johannesburg North comes along with wishy-washy talk about considerations of humanity and international moral considerations, but we have reached the stage in the real and hard battle of life in which one ought to keep that kind of argument for high school debating societies, particularly those in the schools in Houghton and similar places. In the hard reality of our present-day life, I find it staggering that an hon. member with his background should be able to make a wishy-washy speech here interceding for people who are economic saboteurs, such as those to whom the hon. the Minister referred. Therefore that hon. member’s terminology is out of place in a debate of this nature. It was maintained in this House earlier this year that there is an internal wing and an external wing of the PFP. To judge from the arguments advanced yesterday by the hon. member for Sandton, it is very clear to me that these two characteristics of the PFP are again coming to the fore, namely that for domestic consumption it is implied that they, too, want fairly stiff measures for people who commit these irregularities. But on the other hand they also speak with a view to the external wing. For the benefit of the people outside it is said: “These people can do this kind of thing. They will have to stay in prison a few years longer, but actually we want to keep them in this country.” We cannot tolerate this kind of thing in South Africa. We cannot tolerate this kind of patriotism in South Africa. Therefore I now come to the hon. member for Sandton who said, inter alia, the following—

That is according to the hon. member—

What a stunning revelation by the hon. member! He says that what we are dealing with here is “only the tip of the iceberg”. The hon. member admits it. He knows that we are dealing here with an iceberg and he knows what the consequences are when a ship—even one of the size of the Titanic—hits an iceberg. He perceives this. In his occasional lucid moments he realizes that we are faced with a dangerous situation. He recognizes the danger. He recognizes, too, the consequences of this danger for a country in South Africa’s present position. But in spite of this he does not want to eliminate the danger. I ask myself: “Why do they not want to remove this iceberg? Why does he want to protect such people, such citizens, on the basis of the wishy-washy considerations advanced by the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Is the hon. member afraid that in the struggle that lies ahead for the peoples of Southern Africa, we may set a precedent for perhaps wanting to deal with other people, people who also want to form an iceberg in other spheres of our life. Is that perhaps the reason?

I should like to bring a few facts to the attention of the House. Experience in recent times shows incontrovertibly that in most instances in which exchange control offences are proved, people have been involved whose immediate origin was outside the Republic of South Africa. One can ask: When did the infringements of the exchange control regulations become a problem? To this we may reply that over the years there have been cases from time to time of people trying to play clever tricks. The rate of infringements has increased substantially in recent times, however. In the first six months of 1976, 13 people appeared in court on 83 charges, and fines altogether amounting to R18 940 were imposed. The total sum involved in these instances was R177 362, and the value of money and goods declared forfeited was R52 951. In contrast, in the first six months of 1977, 666 charges were brought against 66 people in court Fines amounting to a total of R110 000 were imposed. The total figure involved in these cases amounted to almost R10 million and the value of money and goods declared forfeited was R223 986. The implications of this trend are very clear. The authorities are investigating cases in which amounts of R100 000 and more are involved. One does not know how many cases and what amounts which have not yet been investigated may be involved. The indications are that in one specific instance, diamonds to the value of more than R20 million could be involved. Irregular transactions of this nature can cause us endless harm with regard to the position of our gold reserves and other foreign reserves. The very fact that the reserves mentioned were previously slow to rise to a more satisfactory level was one of the most important factors making it difficult for the Government to continue with the policy of a more active stimulation of the country’s economic growth in general. It also made it more difficult for the Government to combat the problem of unemployment. The gravity of the situation is not properly reflected by the real fines imposed or the forfeiture of property, since in many cases in which large amounts of money were at stake, the guilty parties has to be acquitted owing to technical reasons. That, too, gives rise to the expectation that the Mostert Commission did submit certain proposals which would largely eliminate this problem, for example the overhauling of the legal provisions relating to matters of this nature.

Now I want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Constantia. In his speech yesterday he said, for example (Hansard, 28 February, 1978)—

The hon. member for Constantia went on to say—

The hon. member for Constantia can sometimes be just as incredibly naïve. Surely we are not dealing here with good patriots. We are not dealing with good citizens.

If the hon. member for Johannesburg North could sometimes get away from the theatre a little, I want to inform him that there are many interesting books in the library. I refer him for example to Staatsreg, a book by Prof. Verloren van Themaat. Someone like Prof. Marinus Wiegers, who is not always favourably disposed to my view of the matter, has published a further work on this. I urge the hon. member for Johannesburg North to go and read chapter 21 of this book. It concerns the whole matter of citizenship, the whole history of citizenship, and the responsibilities of citizenship. When someone chooses a country in which he wants to live, he ought to display the utmost loyalty towards that country, even more so than the inhabitants of that country, particularly when that country is in a difficult situation. We are not dealing here with good citizens. We are dealing here with people who have come to South Africa, people who seemed to answer to the obvious norms and requirements we set new citizens. Now, however, we in South Africa are moving into a difficult period. The whole world knows it. We are not an exception. We are entering a difficult era, and now we are dealing with people who are cold-bloodedly betraying everything we have offered them—the good reception, the sunshine, our gold and everything we have allowed them to share. What else can we do but take the most drastic action and send them back to their country of origin.

I accept that one cannot choose one’s own family. However, one can choose one’s inlaws and friends oneself. What becomes of South African citizens who do not behave themselves? I know where they land up in the political sense. They land up in the PRP, where we can see them and where we can watch them every day. We are dealing here with unsound people, people who cannot mean anything to our country. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the Government and the NP—as the hon. member for Simonstown rightly said—would in fact be neglecting their duty if they did not deal with these people as we want to deal with them now. The kind of distinction which the hon. member for Constantia wants to draw simply cuts no ice. As far as I and other hon. members on this side of the House are concerned, we assure the hon. the Minister of our wholehearted support with regard to the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to convey my sincere thanks to my side of the House and to hon. members of the NRP and the SAP for the strong support they have given this legislation, and also for the constructive speeches they have made. Throughout the debate the speeches attested to constructive ideas and loyalty to their country. As far as the Official Opposition are concerned, they have two main objections. The first is that we do not exclude South African citizens by naturalization from the operation of the legislation. However, that is no new principle. This principle is already contained in the principal Act which we are now supplementing, for example in section 43. To a certain extent it is also contained in section 44 of the Act. I say “to a certain extent” because that section only deals with a certain class of person. The hon. member for Koedoespoort rightly quoted examples from English law to prove that this is an inter nationally recognized principle. Therefore the issue here is not one of points of law as such. What we have here is merely emotional arguments. It is only an emotional argument to try to make out that a naturalized or registered citizen should be treated in all respects like a citizen by birth or descent. That is why hon. members of the Opposition must also permit me to argue emotionally in this regard.

A large number of immigrants become citizens by naturalization after having first acquired permanent residence. How does one acquire permanent residence? In the first instance one applies to the Immigration Selection Board. There such a person has to prove, inter alia, that he is law-abiding.

After the prescribed period of residence in this country—and this also applies to people who become citizens by way of registration—such a person takes an oath of loyalty to the Republic. Now hon. members opposite must not tell me that people who have first had to give evidence to the Immigration Selection Board that they are law-abiding and who have taken an oath of loyalty to this country, and then go on to commit gross economic sabotage, are so serious about their South African citizenship. Nor must hon. members argue that this does not entitle the Government to take action against them as is provided in the legislation.

The second objection is that a person may be deported from the country solely on the basis of the imposition of a fine. That is so; the legislation says so and I am not trying to get away from that. However, I want to point out that on innumerable occasions hon. judges have imposed very heavy fines in order to stress the gravity of the offence. I am very sorry, but I cannot concede that compulsory imprisonment should be a prerequisite to us deporting a man from the country.

Then we come to the issue of statelessness. I do not want to accuse the Official Opposition of being unpatriotic, disloyal, etc. Nor shall I do so. I merely ask that in certain respects they should display more sense and responsibility. My complaint against the Official Opposition is that they were not sensible when they made the issue of statelessness a point of dispute across the floor of the House. This legislation would have had far more teeth and would have been a far more effective deterrent if we had not made this issue a point of dispute across the floor of the House, because the statements in this regard by the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the statements by the hon. member for Sandton compel me to deny categorically that we can make a person stateless. Moreover I do not intend to take it further than that. [Interjections.] What this amounts to is that if I have to reply to this matter in full and explain it in full, we shall only be giving some of the people who want to infringe this legislation further ideas, and that I do not intend doing. But I deny categorically that we can make a person stateless.

“Can make”?

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not accept my word when I say that I categorically deny it?

You said that you would explain and substantiate it.

I state categorically that we cannot make a person stateless in terms of deportation under this legislation.

Will he still retain his South African citizenship?

No. However, I said categorically that we cannot make him stateless. [Interjections.] The proposed new section 47 affords me, as Minister of the Interior, a discretion in this regard. I want to say at once that I shall always be merciful towards the small operator, as long as it is a first offence and there are humanitarian grounds. However, I want to state once again that I shall show no mercy whatsoever towards the big operator. I can tell hon. members here and now that my door is open to all persons—including hon. members of this House—who want to come and see me in connection with such cases, but if they come and see me about a big operator, I want to tell them in advance that they will only be creating false expectations among those people. Quite simply, I must take ruthless action against a big operator by giving teeth to this legislation so as to restrict this criminal practice as much as possible. I fear that this offence is too serious at this stage in our country’s history for us to water down the Bill before the House in any respect.

There has been talk about the depressive effect which this legislation will have on our efforts as regards immigration. As Minister of Immigration I am of course concerned about dropping immigration figures, and naturally I shall be concerned if any measure has the effect of discouraging immigration. Probably I shall deal with yet other measures in the House which will have the same effect, but we can afford to discourage this clasz of person from emigrating to South Africa because we can get along without them.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—117: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bartlett, G. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Jong, G.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Miller, R. B.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Page, B. W. B.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Pyper, P. A.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raw, W. V.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, N. B.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—16: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

One of the agreements negotiated between South Africa and Bophuthatswana when the latter became independent deals with the movement of citizens of the two countries across the common borders and the sojourn of these citizens in the respective countries where they are regarded as aliens.

The South African laws regulating the entry of aliens into South Africa and their sojourn here contain certain provisions authorizing the Minister of the Interior to exempt certain persons or categories of persons from the provisions of the said laws. These powers of exemption conferred upon the Minister by the said laws are used to implement the said agreement. During negotiations about independence for Bophuthatswana, representatives of the two countries agreed that the agreement with regard to the entry into and sojourn in South Africa of Bophuthatswana citizens should be supported by legislation. The South African Government undertook to introduce such legislation in Parliament during the present session.

In the Bill which is before the House, the South African Government is giving effect to this undertaking.

Mr. Speaker, on the face of it there is no reason why we should not support the Second Reading of the legislation. It is obvious that when there is, on the one hand, a set of laws controlling the movement of people across the borders and, on the other hand, a set of agreements with a newly independent neighbouring State, contradictions, conflicts, obscurities and uncertainties may arise. For that reason we must support the legislation in principle.

The hon. the Minister may be able to assist us in another respect by indicating what the effect would be on the rights and privileges of, for example, the Tswana citizens moving to and fro across the border. Is there an implication that some of their rights and privileges may be prejudiced by the indirect approval granted to the agreements by Parliament? I know that the hon. the Minister of the Interior is not personally involved in this question at all, but it would give us greater peace of mind if the hon. the Minister could illuminate this aspect, i.e. how the rights and privileges of, for example, the Tswanas or Xhosas will be affected in this connection. I am referring to this especially because there is a difference in wording. In this connection I refer the hon. the Minister to the Afrikaans version of the word “sojourn”. In the legislation it is merely referred to as “verblyf”, but in the agreements—I am referring specifically to those agreements relating to employment and movement across the border—the words “tydelike verblyf” are used. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could clarify this. Subject to the remarks I have just made, we shall support the Second Reading of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, from what the hon. the Minister has just said, it is quite clear that the legislation legalizes the position which will be customary as a result of the agreement negotiated with the neighbouring State of Bophuthatswana. The purpose of the legislation is to facilitate movement, entry and sojourn of citizens of the country. The people who really benefit from this are, in the first place, the citizens of the neighbouring state, but for all practical purposes they are so integrated into our economy that in facilitating matters for them, we are helping ourselves as well. By doing this, a certain measure of permanence may be obtained with regard to workers as such. Therefore, a symbiotic process is being initiated here. We have nothing against that and we support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to me to support the Bill on behalf of this side of the House. It is becoming customary, it seems, for me to have to rise just after the hon. member for Durban Central and then to have to say that I agree with him. The hon. member for Johannesburg North had reservations about the support of his party for the Bill. I do not think the hon. member’s anxiety is relevant here, for the Bill deals purely with the movement of people across the border. It suspends the statutory provisions relating to the admission of aliens in so far as that agreement has affected these things.

The hon. member asked a question about the rights of these people. In section 3 of the agreement entered into with the Bophuthatswana Government—the hon. the Minister has already referred to this—which has already been incorporated and approved by this Parliament in the measure enacting the independence of Bophuthatswana, it is provided what kind of travel documents people will need when they enter the country. It is also laid down in the agreement what documents will be mutually recognized. In sub-paragraph (b) it is said—

From this one can infer, therefore, that the status quo with regard to the rights of these people will be maintained. People who were inside the borders of South Africa at the time of independence will retain the rights possessed by them before independence. I think this answers the hon. member’s question.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Johannesburg North for his support of the Bill, and with reference to his remarks I may just tell him that I am in a difficult position as the Minister of the Interior. The Department of Interior really has nothing to do with the matter. This is actually nothing but further legal confirmation of an agreement entered into with the Government concerned by another department. If the hon. member does not have it with him, I might tell him for his information that it is contained in the Government Gazette No. 5823 of 6 December 1977. I really cannot reply to the matter raised by the hon. member. Nor does it seem to me that he considered it a very serious matter. The fact is, however, that my department really has nothing to do with the matter. If the hon. member feels very strongly about it, we can postpone the Committee Stage of the Bill until tomorrow and take the matter further then. However, if he does not feel very strongly about it, I should be glad if we could take all the stages now.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In recent times there has been an increase in cave defacement. An inquiry by the Cave Research Organization of South Africa revealed that there were a number of firms already dealing in cave-formations.

This environmental defacement occurs in the form of the defacement of rock faces, tree trunks, walls and other structures which are written and painted on, the defacement of rock-paintings, some of which are of great historical value, and the defacement of mountain slopes by people who write all sorts of slogans and names on them by means of white-washed stones. It is necessary to control these undesirable practices.

For this reason, it is proposed in the Bill that provincial councils be invested with the necessary legislative powers to enable them to pass legislation to prohibit environmental defacement and to control trading in cave-formations. Such legislation will supplement the existing Parliamentary legislation which prohibits and controls sea and air pollution, and the provincial legislation which prohibits and controls environmental pollution.

The Bill is supported by the Department of Planning and the Environment and by the National Monuments Council.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I want to say that we support, in fact welcome, this Bill. We do so on two grounds. Firstly, there is the question of merit, with which I shall deal presently and, secondly, there is the principle of extending powers to provincial councils to enable them to legislate for and on behalf of and give enabling powers to the local authorities, divisional councils and the like.

It is important that they have this power. It is interesting to note that at this stage we are devolving powers upon provincial administrations when there appears to be, to say the least, a shadow of doubt creeping over the future and permanence of the provincial councils.

I now want to refer to the merits of this Bill. In terms of par. 24 of the second schedule to the Financial Relations Act, 1976, special powers are devolved upon the provincial administrations. Whereas the existing par. 24 stops at environmental pollution, which is important with regard to controlling smoke, noise and oil pollution, the proposed new par. 24 in the Bill embarks upon a further field of environment. Here again I think we can deal with it on two bases, viz. firstly, environmental defacement and, secondly, trading in cave formations.

I first want to discuss the question of environmental defacement. We fully support the idea that we must protect our heritage in this country. We must protect, for example, the natural ridges and prevent their defacement by buildings spoiling the skyline. There is also the question of the desecration and the question of quarries which causes to a large measure of complaint. Although permission has to be obtained under the mining regulations, I think provincial administrations should give careful attention to the question of quarries. Where one quarries stone it defaces the environment very badly and it stays badly scarred for many years. If this has to take place, there are methods available whereby grass and stone can be applied to obliterate the ugly scars caused by the quarries so that the natural environment is restored. We should try to do that.

There is also the question of vandalism. It is a shame that we have to legislate against vandalism. We have beautiful trees which have to be cut down unnecessarily or on which people carve their names and all sorts of inscriptions. It is heartbreaking to see it. But unfortunately vandalism does take place, and we must take strong measures to prevent this in order to preserve these assets. One also finds adverts painted and inscribed on stones in the hills and I know that certain towns like to display their name and other adverts up against neighbouring hills. This is something which we should look at carefully. Sometimes no damage is done, but on the other hand this mode of advertising does eat into the environment itself. From that point of view I believe we are legislating for something which is very necessary indeed.

Turning to the second part of the amendment, namely “trading in cave formations”, the hon. the Minister in his speech referred to certain aspects of trading in cave formations and when one reads the words “trading in cave formations” one is at first not sure whether one is going to sub-let the caves for the purposes of habitation. However, what is of consequence here, is the importance of the rock paintings themselves. Before dealing with the rock paintings themselves, as far as the caves themselves are concerned, I am pleased that this involves all the provinces, because all the provinces are involved in this type of problem. One thinks, for example, of Makapaansgat—the hon. member for Pietersburg will certainly be able to help us in this regard—and the rich heritage which we derive from it. We also think of famous South Africans, such as Prof. Dant, Prof. Broome and Prof. Tobias, who have made great contributions in these fields and we feel that there should always be a measure of protection as far as these caves are concerned. The case of Makapaansgat, using the cartondating process investigators are able to go back many, many years and are able to determine whether these caves were at a time inhabited. I have in my possession from Makapaansgat a small fossilized bone which has been identified by one of these professors as being about two million years old. Therefore it is important that we should guard this heritage as a tourist attraction. Whereas paleontological and archaeological artefacts are protected in terms of other laws, the geological ones are not. It is therefore quite possible for someone to go into a cave—in this connection I turn for a moment to the rock paintings to which the hon. the Minister referred—and to carve out that entire rock with the Bushmen paintings on it and then to resell it, in fact to trade on it. I think this is what the hon. the Minister is getting at and I think this is what we need to protect.

The provinces also are concerned in this respect, because rock paintings are something which depict the history of South Africa, namely the Bushmen, the coming of the White people and the various types of animals. If one looks for the rich heritage which exists in South Africa, particularly in regard to the Bushmen paintings, one can draw a line from Griqualand East right through to northern Natal and the whole of the Drakensberg range. This area is rich in these paintings. In fact, one of the richest parts is to be found in the Indodema Gorge, where Harold Parker spent some two years in 17 caves digging up 3 909 different rock paintings. These have been preserved for posterity. Incidentally an exhibition of these was sent to Europe and to West Germany where it was received with great acclaim and with great prestige as far as South Africa is concerned.

Then, of course, as the Drakensberg extends down to the Sneeuberge and into the Winterberg and protrudes into the Cape Peninsula, more rock formations are found with paintings on them. Apart from the berg formations, we have open formations, where from Griqualand West right through to the Karoo there are formations involving the western Free State and the western Transvaal as well. One could find a koppie with something like five engravings on it and these require protection. When talking about protection, we have the situation to which I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister, where in terms of the National Monuments Act, No. 28 of 1969, these areas have been declared in terms of section 10 thereof, so that there is already a measure of protection. But it is no good having them proclaimed and declared through that body unless we are going to guard them. The only way we can guard them is by having someone in charge, as they have in Rhodesia for example. There they have a policeman on duty all the time so that vandalism, defacement and theft cannot occur. Unless we are going to protect these places after they have been proclaimed, there is no point in actually proclaiming them, because these are not places one would find in Adderley Street or in Eloff Street. These places are usually situated in remote and outlying places where it is difficult to obtain access and where very few people go.

Now we have a situation which will be covered in terms of the legislation before the House, a situation in which there is in fact no proclamation at all. The only sort of protection that is going to be given to rock paintings and other artefacts of this nature will be in terms of this legislation. Where discoveries are made it will often take too long for the National Monuments Commission to make recommendations for proclamations. Therefore it is up to the provincial administrations to step in the very moment there are discoveries of this nature and to legislate along these lines in order to ensure proper protection for such discoveries. As far as the public is concerned, I believe they should be educated. I think the public needs to be educated along these lines. Furthermore, there is the enforcement of this legislation. We would support strong measures and severe penalties to ensure that this is carried out and that the proper protection is given to this rich heritage. Therefore we have pleasure in supporting the Bill which is before the House.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP are happy to support the Bill before the House. We do that for two reasons, one of which is that it is in line with our intention of delegating powers to provincial councils, and I might add that we have, what one might call, a vested interest in one of those provincial councils! [Interjections.] The gem of provincial administrations is the Natal Provincial Administration. [Interjections.]

Our national heritage is irreplaceable, and it is as well therefore that timeous legislation is introduced to prevent damage being done to caves and to the paintings which have been referred to in some detail already, before it reaches the stage where we are left with none to look after. We are very happy to have these powers placed in the hands of provincial administrations. They are closer to the actual care of caves and proclaimed places in question, and are therefore in a better position to see to it that the legislation is carried out.

Secondly, we are totally in favour of it that natural heritages like the Cango Caves be preserved and that any trading there be strictly controlled. I think it is correct to say that the Cango Caves are virtually without peer in the world. It would be a tragedy if unregulated trading were to cause a deterioration of conditions within the caves which are a major tourist attraction. We have great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow quite rightly mentioned that there are two principles in volved in this very brief measure. The first relates to the better protection of the environment, and he dealt rather exhaustively with that subject. I can hardly add to his comments except to say that we on this side of the House whole-heartedly support that aspect of the legislation.

*As far as the second principle contained in this amending Bill is concerned, the hon. member for Berea supported the legislation on behalf of his party. In regard to the second principle, I want to point out that the provincial administrations already deal with related aspects. They are involved with the pollution to which the hon. the Minister referred. The provinces also have powers concerning holiday resorts, recreational facilities, etc. We therefore welcome the expansion of the powers of the provinces in this regard. The hon. member for Berea pointed out that they have an interest in one of these provincial administrations. I think this measure illustrates better than anything else, perhaps, how the provincial administrations really have a role to play in our domestic economy, especially as far as decentralization is concerned. I just want to tell the hon. member for Berea that this is a field in which provincial administrations can in fact play a positive role in our country, instead of just undertaking experiments in race relations, like those which his party is conducting in Natal. [Interjections.]

The hon. members for Berea and Hillbrow spoke at some length on the subject of caves, etc., so I do not think it is necessary to detain the House much longer as far as this matter is concerned. We on this side of the House support the Bill whole-heartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for their kind support and for their interesting contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

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

I have looked very carefully at the words “environmental defacement” which precede this proposed insertion, and I wonder whether these words will in fact be sufficient to ensure the preservation of the cave itself. Whereas the defacement is not allowed, it may be that adequate provision has not been made for actual preservation in this legislation. This amendment is accordingly designed to make provision for the preservation of a cave itself. In other words, there are two aspects of the matter. In the first place, the trading in things like artifacts and Bushman paintings is prohibited, and in the second place we go further and allow provincial administrations to pass laws to protect and preserve the actual caves themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot grant the hon. member for Hillbrow’s request. It is now merely a question of splitting hairs. I honestly think that not to deface implies that one must preserve. Seeing that the hon. members of the Official Opposition are most agreeable at this stage, I am prepared to look at the matter again and to accede to the hon. member’s request in the Other Place if this is at all necessary. At this stage, however, I honestly do not think it is.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. the Minister’s attitude, and with the agreement of the Committee, I withdraw the amendment in the hope that it will be considered in the Other Place.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The fact that immigrants liable for military service who enjoy the privilege of permanent residence in the Republic and who meet all the requirements necessary to apply for naturalization as South African citizens, can evade military service in terms of existing provisions of a law solely by declaring that they do not intend applying for South African citizenship, has for some time been a source of dissatisfaction, especially amongst the young people who do perform such service.

In recent times, and especially since the intensifying of military service and the stiffer competition on the labour market as a result of the unfavourable economic conditions, there is a growing insistence among South African citizens that those immigrants who would have been liable for military service if they were South African citizens, should also make their contribution to the stabilizing of peace, calm and order in the country where they have found a home.

Some years ago the legal advisors of the State came to the conclusion on investigation that there was no firm rule in international law preventing a State from calling up aliens who have permanent residence in its territory for military service, but that the matter was still contentious and was usually regulated by means of a treaty or agreement.

Strong objections were in fact addressed to the Republic by certain States when the intention to call up such immigrants for military service became known.

It was therefore decided to recommend to this House that South African citizenship in future be granted to aliens not older than 25 years who settle in the Republic for permanent residence under certain circumstances.

The gist of the legislation is that citizenship remains a voluntary matter.

The provisions of the Bill will only apply to immigrants in the above age group who acquire permanent residence after the legislation now proposed has come into effect.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, the Bill now before the House has evoked, in the past few days, country-wide interest and, as we have heard tonight, it is not a Bill without its international implications. It is therefore necessary for us to consider both the positive and the negative aspects of the Bill. I think it is necessary for us to realize, when debating the Bill, that there are advantages in it for the Republic and also that there are certain very clearly defined disadvantages in it. Some of those disadvantages could lead to consequences which we may not wish to face. All these aspects must be weighed very carefully in the light of the ultimate interests of the Republic and its people. I first want to deal with what I term the positive aspects of the Bill, the advantages which justify support for the Bill.

I think it is a fair argument to say that immigrants who leave their country of origin do so to acquire a better life, with greater future prospects for themselves and for their families. They seek to acquire greater prospects than they could have hoped for if they had stayed in their countries of origin. I think it also correct to say that the overwhelming majority of immigrants who come to South Africa do enjoy the fruits of South Africa and of the work of its people here. The overwhelming majority of these people enjoy a good living, the advantages and the opportunities of education, and opportunities of finding jobs and doing satisfying work. Above all they enjoy—unlike in any other country in the world—the privileges of a very exclusive society and its benefits. It is reasonable therefore to expect that such people, in addition to accepting these benefits, must also accept the responsibilities which go with that. What does that entail? What are those responsibilities? One of these responsibilities is military service at times of need. Then there is also joint responsibility with other South Africans for the maintenance of democracy and that concerns the right to vote. The question now is why they should have joint responsibility with other South Africans. I would say that the argument is clear.

These people come to the country, enjoy permanent residence here and are in fact South Africans in all but name. They have chosen to come here. They have chosen to take up permanent residence, and most of the people who come here will never go back to where they came from. Most of the people who come here will, after a few years, have put down their roots and have found their ties in South Africa. I think we should realize that to emigrate is a very big step in anybody’s life. It involves a commitment to a new country, to a new future, and I think it is only reasonable for their hosts to expect of them to identify themselves, through citizenship, with the country they have chosen to live in permanently.

There is a second argument in favour of the Bill, i.e. that the present situation of enjoying permanent residence without ever acquiring full citizenship encourages and perpetuates what I would call a dual loyalty, a loyalty to two countries. This is an old argument in South African politics between Nat and Sap, between English-speaker and Afrikaans-speaker, and I know that has caused much bitterness in the political life of South Africa. Our Republic is almost 17 years old, and I am grateful to be able to say that those old arguments have largely died away; they are no longer with us today. In the times that we find ourselves that sort of duality which existed many years ago cannot today, if it still exists, be to our advantage. Where the opportunity for the perpetuation of duality exists, I think we should try to eliminate it.

There is also a third argument in favour of the Bill, i.e. that it is clearly not retrospective. I think there would have been a major outcry amongst all sorts of people in South Africa and outside if the Bill had any retrospective provision in it. The provisions of the Bill would not affect people who came to South Africa between 1947 and 1978. The Bill does not throw families who are already in South Africa into confusion or people who have children under the age of 25 into a state of worry. It does not cause any problems of that nature at all. We must realize that there are perhaps over 200 000 of these people in South Africa. The children of these people who are already in South Africa and who hold permanent residence are, of course, covered by section 3 of the South African Citizenship Act and will automatically become South African citizens in the years that lie ahead. Therefore the problem of the 200 000 to 250 000 people that are not covered by the Bill, people who have a duality, is a dwindling problem. In fact, the number of people to whom the Bill will apply is very limited.

The new provisions will only apply to a person who at the commencement of the legislation is not older than 23 years, as I understand the reading of the Bill. This deduction is based on the provisions of the new section 11A as proposed in clause 1, which states namely that such a person is entitled to permanent residence in terms of a permit issued after the commencement of the legislation and that he must be ordinarily resident in the Republic for a period of two years after a permit for permanent residence has been issued, and that he at that stage is not older than 25 years. The new provisions will only apply if the person has been granted permanent residence after commencement of the Act—that is, persons who would have been granted permanent residence before commencement of the legislation will not be affected. In other words, the legislation is not retrospective. If my deduction is correct, the provisions of the Bill do not affect persons who at the commencement of the Act will be older than 23 years. If I am not entirely correct on this aspect, I hope the hon. the Minister will correct me. It does not make a difference to the principle, but merely concerns my deduction on the basis of the provisions of the Bill itself. The Bill, as I see it, will only be of reference to those who are younger than 23 and who have been issued with permits for permanent residence after the legislation is promulgated.

The application of the Bill is, in fact, limited while this acquisition of citizenship is not even compulsory. There is an option which can be exercised when the person concerned—or if he is a minor through his father—acquires permanent residence at any time during a two-year period or after the two-year period of permanent residence has elapsed. What is that option? That option is that a person who wishes to come and live here with us in South Africa chooses to take part at a given moment in the responsibilities of the country and to be part of the people of the country. If he chooses not to do that, he remains here on the basis of being an alien. I believe it is a free decision for him to make.

There is a protection for minors in both directions. In the Bill itself there is a protection for minors. If a parent opts while a child is a minor to reject South African citizenship on behalf of that minor, once the minor attains majority he has a period of three months in which he himself can make a decision as to his citizenship. There is also a protection the other way, in section 16 of the existing Act. If the parents do not opt and allows the youngster to acquire South African citizenship, he has the existing rights as set out in section 16 of the Act, when he becomes 21, to renounce his citizenship and revert to the status of an alien.

There is a fourth argument in favour of the Bill, viz. the feeling and the opinion of the people of South Africa, particularly the young people of South Africa, the young citizens of this country. They are the people whose fortunes are committed to those of South Africa, who have to undertake military service as part of their duties on behalf of the country, who suffer disruption of their education and who sometimes suffer the loss of remunerative job opportunities, while others who live here permanently, who have no other home to go to and are, in fact, South Africans in all but name, suffer no such hardships or disabilities and have no such responsibilities. I say that this is not fair and I do not believe it is just.

I would like to quote the answers to two questions I put last year to the hon. the Minister of Statistics and the hon. the Minister of Defence respectively. They make interesting reading. In so far as the hon. the Minister of Statistics was concerned, I asked whether statistics were kept of the ages of immigrants to the Republic; and, if so, how many persons under the age of 30 years immigrated to the Republic during 1976. I was told that in 1976 28 939 people who immigrated to South Africa—out of a total of 46 239—were under the age of 30 years. That is a large number of people. I then asked the hon. the Minister of Defence the following question (Questions; 1 February 1977; col. 77)—

1. (1) How many citizens of foreign countries registered for military service in 1976;
2. (2) how many of these persons indicated that they did not intend to become naturalized South African citizens?

Those are, in other words, the people who could be exempt from military service. The answer was that 1 765 people registered and that 1 213 people opted not to become South Africans, thus avoiding military service. If one takes into account the many thousands who have come to this country, that means that only an infinitesimal fraction—about 500 people in one year—actually opt of their own accord to do military service and to accept those responsibilities. I do not think that that is fair and that it is a situation which we should perpetuate. The youth of South Africa will by and large be pleased with the principle of this Bill, which will put them on equal terms with newcomers.

Lastly, there is the question of precedents. I am going to ask two questions in this regard. I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation is here tonight, because I wish to have a little sport with him. I want to ask whether this Bill injects an entirely new principle into South African law and custom? This Bill represents a major departure from NP policy. It is a radical and complete volte-face on NP policy. If hon. members do not believe me, let me quote from the debate in October 1974, when the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation was still the Minister of Immigration.

Piet Sport!

He is normally known as “Piet Promise” and not “Piet Sport”. In his capacity as Minister of Immigration, the hon. the Minister said (Hansard; 11 October 1974; col. 5245)—

That is what he said on that occasion. Let me also quote what he said a little further in the same speech. He was discussing NP policy, which has so clearly changed tonight. He was really giving Dr. Jacobs, the then member for Hillbrow, a very hard time.

I gave him all the hell in the world. [Interjections.]

He said the following—and I quote from col. 5246—

He then went further and said—

He was referring to taking out citizenship in a new country. He continued—

We can smile about it, but the point is that there is quite clearly—and I do not think there is any argument about it—a change in the policy of the Government. However, I was talking about precedent and what I wanted to say was that this measure does not inject a new principle into South African law at all. If one looks back to 1924 one finds that there was an Act relating to South West Africa which was called the South West Africa Naturalization of Aliens Act, and section 2(1) reads—

In those days they were called British subjects—

Why did you say it was a new principle then?

I said it was not a new principle. I was trying to explain to the hon. member, who obviously did not hear me, that this was not a new principle. Let us now look at the Union Nationality and Flags Act, Act No. 40 of 1927. Section 1(b) reads—

shall be a South African citizen. Later on, he obtains the right to sign a declaration not to be such a citizen and there are even precedents in section 5(4) of this Act in terms of which—

1. (a) his name in full;
2. (b) his birthplace;
3. (c) his present address;
4. (d) his occupation;
5. (e) the date of the declaration;

And so on. This is not a new principle in South African law. In fact, when this law was abolished in 1949 by this Government, I think it was the then Opposition which opposed the abolition of that Act. I realize that circumstances are different now, that times are different, and that in those days there was not the question of military call-up, but the principle in so far as citizenship is concerned, remains the same.

NP policy is changing!

Yes, NP policy has changed. However, I think that the principles relating to citizenship remain the same.

There are two main arguments and a few subsidiary ones why this Bill should be opposed. I am now looking at the disadvantages of entering into an amendment of this type. The first one relates to immigration. I think it is a very serious difficulty which we are coming up against when we consider this. South Africa’s growth is in many ways dependent upon bringing people into South Africa, people who have built-in skills, expertise, and who bring with them talents which are vitally required for the economy and for the growth of our country. In 1975 we had 50 464 immigrants and after emigration, we gained 40 000. In 1976 there were 46 000 immigrants, giving us a gain of 30 000. In 1977 there were only 24 822 immigrants and a net loss of 1 178 was involved. Therefore on the immigration level at the present moment all is not rosy; not now, and perhaps not in the future. I think the hon. the Minister must be warned—because he is also the Minister of Immigration—that this measure will undoubtedly slow even further the immigration rate and, furthermore, that if we continue to sustain further loss by means of emigration, the net annual loss in so far as immigration is concerned, could become very big. Let there be no doubt about that. Let there also be no doubt that that consideration should be a deterrent in so far as the passing of this Bill is concerned. What is the immigrant psychology? The immigrant’s psychology, when he goes to apply to become a citizen, causes him to ask what circumstances are like in the country, what sort of security there is for immigrants—social and economic security—what the employment opportunities are, whether he or his son will have to do military service, etc. We must, no doubt, understand that it, i.e. the slowing of immigration is going to be a consequence of this Bill and we must go into it with our eyes wide open if we go into it at all. We must also understand that it will slow down, if not stop completely, immigration to South Africa. I believe this Parliament must weigh up carefully whether it is in the interests of South Africa to do this, whether we can afford it, whether we can afford to compound the manpower and the people drain which South Africa is already experiencing.

There is a second argument which can easily be used against the passage of this Bill in this form. I believe that it is interesting that this Bill should be debated at a time when the issue of Black citizenship is a major issue here and elsewhere. This Bill gives foreigners the right to opt for permanent residence and, within two years, to acquire citizenship and all the benefits flowing from ih while the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development is hell-bent on depriving every Black person who was born and bred in South Africa and who knows no other home, of his birthright. [Interjections.]

You are quite ridiculous now!

I want to say that an honest man must realize there is nought for the comfort of Black South Africans to be found in this amendment. [Interjections.]

It is a very typical Bill. [Interjections.]

This Bill has also other weaknesses. I believe it is overly harsh, particularly when one looks at the proposed new section 11A(3)(c) in terms of which, if a person does not opt to become a South African citizen, he is disqualified from acquiring South African citizenship in any manner. I think this is overly harsh.

Why?

I shall try to answer that. I believe that a person may in time change his mind. I think that to force a person to choose now or to remain forever a stranger, is not in keeping with the spirit of citizenship in this country. There may be many factors, and may I quote as my authority for that the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, who in 1974, had this to say about this very issue (Hansard, vol. 52, col. 5246)—

The hon. the Minister was referring to social and medical benefits.—

That was the point of view of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. What I am saying is that it is perhaps too harsh to deprive someone for ever of the right to become a South African citizen if, at the early stages, he has opted not to do so. There should be provision for a change of mind. The love of a country, I believe, grows slowly and not quickly. I believe that to expect newcomers, after two short years, to make a final and irrevocable decision concerning the rest of their lives, to expect them to cut completely their ties with their own homelands—and homelands is an emotive word in this House because often hon. members opposite talk about the love of Black people for their homeland—to expect them to cut completely their ties with their countries of origin from where they have recently come, to expect them to be integrated totally in a new society so soon, is in many cases, if not in all cases, asking too much. I do believe that a longer settling in period should be allowed and that the harshness of the proposed new section 11A(3)(c) should be removed.

Finally, I refer to the proposed new section 11A(5). This is the clause in terms of which the Minister shall publish in the Government Gazette every three months a list of all persons who opt not to be South African citizens. There is a precedent for this in the 1927 legislation, but what, I ask, is to be gained by having this provision? It involves subjecting people to public pressure. It creates a form of stigma and publicity which will cling to people who have opted not to be South Africans. It could well result in victimization. I think the decision not to be a South African is not an illegal decision. It is not a criminal offence. It is not something to which opprobrium should attach. I think, Sir, that it should be deleted.

Finally, Sir, I ask one question of the Government: Why have we let matters go so far? The years of abundant immigrants are nearly gone. Last year only 1 955 applications for citizenship were made. In the year before there were only 2 505. Despite constant pressure from this side of the House nothing has been done over the years to encourage people who come into this country to become citizens. Now, only when it is expedient, after the flood, are the sluice-gates being closed to duality. Only now, when it is expedient, do we close those gates to duality. As a result, because of the peculiar circumstances in which we find ourselves, we may in fact be closing the door to immigration.

But, Sir, having said all that, we must now decide what we are going to do about this Bill. The argument on the question of immigration cannot be refuted. I believe it is a consequence of passing this Bill, and I believe it is merely for this House to decide whether we are prepared to accept the consequence of a drastically reduced flow of immigrants. The argument on Black citizenship is a very valid one. What is being done in South Africa in so far as Black citizenship is concerned is iniquitous. We believe it is unfair, and we have stated this on numerous occasions. The Black citizenship issue nonetheless relates to a principle separate from the principle of this Bill. The principle of this Bill relates to the best interests of South Africa in so far as immigration laws are concerned. This, in the view of my party, is a different issue from the issue of Black citizenship. So, Sir, in our view the overriding arguments should prevail. There are basically two overriding arguments. Firstly, it is fair to expect newcomers to accept the responsibilities as well as the benefits. It is also fair to young South Africans to expect newcomers to do that. Finally, I believe it is fair to ask a person wishing to come and live here permanently to make a free choice.

Therefore, reserving the right to debate other issues in the Committee Stage, and reserving even the right to raise matters during the Third Reading, we will support the principle of this Bill at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, that party has definitely shown a positive change of heart since this Bill was read for the First Time. At that stage the hon. member for Sandton said it was a “shocking measure” and a “drastic measure”.

No, that is not correct.

That is what appeared in the Citizen.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal explanation …

Order! Is the hon. member prepared to allow an explanation?

No, Sir.

Well, I did not say that.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: With respect, Sir, I do not think it requires the consent of that hon. member for the hon. member for Sandton to make a point of personal explanation. It depends on your consent.

The hon. member who is making a speech can give way if he wants to. If not, it is then in the discretion of the Chair, at the end of that speech, to give an hon. member an opportunity to make an explanation if he has been misrepresented to a material extent, and that I cannot judge at this stage. The hon. member may continue.

Sir, the hon. member for Sandton is reported in the Citizen of 25 February …

That is your newspaper!

Yes, it is. I would rather not mention that hon. member’s newspaper here. The hon. member is reported as saying that this measure “would have a shocking effect on immigration”. [Interjections.] I do not know why they are so over-sensitive. I think the whip cracked there. That is what happened. I think the hon. member for Yeoville made his influence felt there. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I have repeatedly told the hon. gentleman that I did not say those words.

What is the point of order?

Sir, he is misrepresenting my words.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I shall accept that, but I just want to add one thing. The report appeared on 25 February, but it has not yet been corrected. This is just like the case of the report in The Star during the election last year. It was only during the censure debate in this House that there was an attempt to correct that report. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, then the hon. member goes further. He says that this measure is contrary to NP policy, and he quotes the then hon. the Minister of Immigration. The hon. the Minister correctly interpreted the policy of the NP as it was then and as it still is now, viz. that one has freedom of choice to apply for citizenship. It is one’s free right and one’s own choice and nobody is obliged to do so, not in terms of this measure either. However, the hon. member goes further and quotes from Acts in which this principle is in fact included. He mentions Acts which contain the principle of the period of two years and of six months. The Acts which he is quoting from include Act No. 40 of 1927—a law which was made under the National Government! It is NP policy! He also quotes from a law which was passed in 1924, Act No. 30 of 1924. This is also a law of the NP Government! Then he says the NP Government has changed. What type of logic is this? It is very clear that the whip cracked in that party and that they decided that, since suspicion was being thrown on their patriotism, they must make this gesture in favour of South Africa. [Interjections.]

After all, the hon. member for Sandton said that there were certain considerations which were important to an immigrant when he emigrated to another country. He expressed certain ideas with which I cannot find fault. However, he said, inter alia, that a prospective immigrant would ask himself what his duties in regard to military service would be in the country to which he was emigrating. In this regard I think it is also relevant to determine what the provisions of international law are. It is interesting that Clive Parry, in his book Nationality and Citizen Laws of the Commonwealth and Ireland, says the following on pages 3 and 4—

Another writer says that citizenship is related to “citizen” and “citadel”. In a certain sense it also seems to be related to security. To its citizen, the ancient citadel was a guarantee of security, order, rest and certainty, from without and within—in the mind of every citizen. The citizen and the idea of citizenship are therefore set apart from everything which is in a state of flux and is always subject to change, insecurity, unrest, disorder and uncertainty.

I think it is important for a prospective immigrant to South Africa to consider what his rights are in the meaning given to the word by international law. If we look at the situation in terms of international law, we see that, as the hon. the Minister said, writers on international law differ with one another on the right which the host country has to compel an immigrant to do military service. That is to say, an immigrant cannot really appeal to international law to exempt him from military service. In actual fact this type of matter is arranged by means of a treaty.

In the two world wars the most important allied powers forced citizens of other States to do military service, so much so that the USA called up 200 000 aliens in the First World War to do military service and received 40 000 letters of protest. In 1918 the USA solved this problem by stipulating in advance that permanently settled so-called “declarant aliens” had to do war service, but with the choice of leaving the country instead.

Then I come to the point which the hon. member for Sandton made, viz. that when a person decides not to accept citizenship, it becomes impossible for him ever to be granted citizenship of South Africa. This is a principle which is recognized by international law and which has also been recognized since 1940 in the USA. The relevant Act in Britain provides that a British subject in a foreign country is not protected from compulsory military service in the host country in the absence of a treaty. If a prospective immigrant considers going to the host country, there are certain other things which he must take into consideration as well. He knows that his juridic personality and legal status are recognized here in South Africa. He can legally demand respect for his life and protection for his person. International law protects his personal and mental freedom, and we recognize this. Secondly, he may participate in the economic life. In terms of international law, he is not necessarily entitled to private ownership, but in South Africa we give it to him all the same. He also has free access to the courts. He has the right to a free, fair, non-discriminatory and unbiased trial, and to a fair verdict in terms of the laws of the host country within a reasonable time. This holds good for the hon. member for Johannesburg North as well; it also holds good for former judges and retired judges because they also have to pass a sentence within a reasonable time.

Furthermore, international law provides that every State has the sovereign right to say which of its non-citizens are entitled to remain in the host country. The Hague Convention of 1930 provides, inter alia—

In the case of dual nationality, international law provides that the country in which the person is domiciled has the prior claim in compelling him to do military service. To summarize, the World Court declared—

Therefore, the immigrant knows what to expect when he comes here.

The hon. member for Sandton went on to say that the measure which is before the House at the moment will put off potential immigrants. I just want to tell him that this measure will not be a consideration for a potential immigrant. A potential immigrant looks at the economic circumstances in the country of his birth and weighs them up against the economic circumstances in the host country. This is decisive. I want to refer the Hon. Member to a study which Prof. John Stone, then professor in sociology at Columbia University in New York, made in 1973, concerning British immigrants in South Africa. He says—

By the way, he also discovered that 90% of the immigrants who come to settle in South Africa support the policy of this Government. Just look at the statistics. From 1939 to 1942, 2 210 more people left South Africa than entered it. After the war it was only in 1950, 1951, 1953 and 1960 that this phenomenon repeated itself. Even in 1976 we showed a profit of 30 769 immigrants. What matters is what is said in this regard in the year book for 1977—

There are also other bodies and other circumstances which may keep immigrants from coming to South Africa. These are bodies like the Christian Institute which discourages immigration to South Africa. They say—

This is the standpoint held by the Christian Institute.

Supported by the Progs.

This is an organization which is protected by some members of that party.

Boraine.

Having said all this, this side of the House is grateful that wiser counsels have prevailed in that party. We are grateful that they support the measure, because it is important that it be supported by all the political parties in South Africa. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we give our unconditional support to the measure as moved by the hon. the Minister.

Order! Before I see the hon. member for Durban Point I want to point out that rule 134(1) provides—

That is, a debate in this House, in this case the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill—

That is not the case in this instance because, as I understand it, it concerns a statement that was made outside the House and reported in a newspaper. In that case rule 134(2) may apply. It provides—

My opinion is that this rule is not intended to be invoked in all the numerous cases where hon. members are misquoted in the newspapers. Those are, to my mind, matters which can be thrashed out during debate in the House, and therefore I cannot afford the hon. member an opportunity of making a personal explanation now.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate those who persuaded the Official Opposition—the PFP—to stand up in revolt for the first time against his master’s voice. [Interjections.] Certain newspapers had indicated, virtually given instructions, that they were to oppose the measure and I think it is a very welcome move in the right direction that there are hon. members in that party who are strong enough to do the right thing for once—and for a change. What is interesting, however, is the flexibility of the high moral principles of some members. When I wanted to move a motion, I was obliged—because of a debate in another party—to water it down. I moved: “that this House while welcoming voluntary military service performed by many immigrants, deplored the evasion of service by other young men who enjoy the hospitality of South Africa by repudiating their intention of becoming citizens …” I found, to my surprise, that some of my then colleagues did not agree with that point of view and said that it would be a shocking thing if one discouraged immigration by acting, in any way, against these young people. I was therefore obliged to put this forward as a private member’s motion. Sir, I am always glad when I make converts. [Interjections.] I am very glad that some of those who disagreed with me then are now supporting this measure.

The hon. the Minister of Defence will remember how, in a Select Committee on the Defence Bill, the matter was raised and strongly argued—I think it was in 1967—by myself and others. The Defence Act was changed in order to make provision for the calling up of non-South African citizens, but the escape provision still remained. I have, on a number of occasions, raised with former Ministers of the Interior their failure to apply the withdrawal of permanent residence from those who used that escape provision. Therefore I am particularly glad that the matter has now been put before the House in a form that will put an end to that evasion. I believe that anyone who enjoys the hospitality of South Africa, who draws their livelihood out of our wealth, who enjoys the stability that generations of South Africans have created here, owes a responsibility to their new country. I have no patience with and no sympathy for those who come here to get what they can out of South Africa and are not prepared to put anything back. I would, in fact, like to see us go further by having a non-citizens tax for those who do not fall under this provision.

It is therefore unnecessary for me to say that the NRP supports this measure. We do have one query, however, which we shall raise during the Committee Stage and which I shall merely mention now to the hon. Minister. We do not believe that it is right that a person who has opted against citizenship should for ever be debarred from acquiring or re-acquiring citizenship in future. These are young people who can be influenced, perhaps even by political parties, to do the wrong thing. They can also be influenced by newspapers, or churches—I regret to say this—to refuse to do their duty for South Africa. If these people grow up, change their approach, become more responsible and want to change their minds by wanting to become South African citizens, I believe there should be machinery to enable them to do so. We shall therefore move, during the Committee Stage, for the omission of the subsection which excludes, for ever, a person who has once opted against taking up citizenship. I believe that any person can change his mind. After all, how many members in this House have not changed their minds? [Interjections.] We have people here who sat behind barbed wire in Koffiefontein and who have different views today.

We have people who are thinking of buying land in Israel, people who hold different views today. We have people who by themselves or through others, when South Africa needed their service in times of war, chose not to give that service. Now the days of the Ossewabrandwag have turned into new summer days and now, for the first time—perhaps for the first time in a long time—the whole Parliament is united on a measure which will ensure that every person living in South Africa, enjoying its hospitality, and of an age to do military service will be required to do that service. I think this is a notable advance and I welcome the hon. member for Boksburg, who now agrees that it is a good thing that everyone should serve their country when their country needs them. I welcome his acceptance of this principle as we have been welcoming it all our lives.

To the Official Opposition and the Government I say that here is an occasion which will go down in history as a red letter day. We in this House can say to all those living in South Africa: “South Africa needs you and if you are not prepared to give it, we do not need you here; good day, good-bye to you”. If we are to lose people of that calibre, I am quite prepared to lose them, because I would rather lose a man than have a man whom I cannot trust to stand by me in time of need. I would rather stand with 10 people I can trust, than with 20 of whom 10 are standing with knives in their hands, ready to stab you in the back. [Interjections.]

We support the measure and I am glad to see this unanimous support.

Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary for me to say that we wholeheartedly welcome the bold support we received from the NRP. The hon. member who has just spoken, has indicated that some hon. members of the Official Opposition have come out in open revolt against his master’s voice. It is probably for that reason that their support for this measure has been a bit pussyfooted. It was support, “but…”. It was the kind of support as we have seen so often from people who cannot really make up their minds or who are divided within their own ranks.

The question of citizenship has had a rather interesting history in the South African Parliament. When legislation on citizenship was first introduced in 1949, there were quite heated debates.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to give us the Afrikaans translation for “pussy-footed”? [Interjections.]

Why does the hon. member think I am speaking English? [Interjections.]

†As I was saying, the question of citizenship has had an interesting history in South Africa. It has led to quite heated debates in the House, e.g. in June 1949, when amendments were introduced on the citizenship legislation. However, as was predicted when South Africa became a Republic, the whole attitude towards citizenship changed drastically and in South Africa at this moment we have a far greater unity on that question than we have ever had before. We welcome this.

On this issue the biggest value is that in the circumstances in which South Africa finds itself at the moment, we must accept that people coming to South Africa today come to South Africa with completely different attitudes from the immigrants who came in the early post-war period. During the post-war period people wanted to get away from a war-ravaged Europe and found an Eldorado in South Africa and in countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America. However it was more a case of their wanting to get away from a war-ravaged Europe. In the circumstances of today people come to South Africa knowing full well that they come to a country that is not seen with great favour in international forums. They come here in the full knowledge that South Africa is going through a difficult period. Yet they come, and are given the choice to accept permanent residence. This legislation deals with those who have indicated—or if they are minors, through their parents—that they wish to accept permanent residence. Unfortunately we have the situation that those who have not accepted citizenship in terms of previously required citizenship qualifications, have been at an advantage in the economic life of South Africa.

We unfortunately have had the situation where some firms, frequently firms with their head offices overseas, have given preference to employing people who are not South African citizens because they knew that those people could not be called up for military service. With this legislation that will be rectified and everybody will be on a par as far as employment opportunities are concerned. Those immigrants who accept permanent residence will have the same advantage or disadvantage which ordinary South African citizens have as far as economic participation is concerned. In view of the fact that they have come here knowing full well what the circumstances, not only of South Africa, but of Southern Africa, are, and they still come here and accept permanent residence, we welcome the provision in terms of which they, before they reach the age of 25, will automatically become South African citizens.

The question is whether exceptions should be made. Mention has been made here of people who might not opt to adopt South African citizenship and that they would then be disqualified. Provided that the circumstances are bona fide and the authorities can be convinced that the circumstances are indeed bona fide, this Bill makes provision for the hon. the Minister to make exceptions for certain persons or even classes of persons. Consequently I do not think it should be necessary for the Official Opposition, or even for the NRP, to move an amendment in the Committee Stage on that particular clause, because the hon. the Minister can use his discretion to make exceptions whenever it is deemed necessary.

We in these benches feel that this is a measure which is highly desirable. It will mean that people who accept permanent residence will accept the full responsibilities of permanent residence in South Africa. We appreciate the support, even the half-measure support of the Official Opposition, of that side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches may be only a small party, being only three in number, but we believe in quality not in quantity! We do express the views, however, of many tens of thousands of South Africans who have no political party to represent them at present. We are not a chameleon party. Every instinct that I could sense in the PFP tonight rebelled against the attitude of their spokesman on this particular Bill. They wanted to oppose this Bill, and by supporting it they stand naked here tonight as a party that is a party of expediency. We as individuals in this party and the party to which we previously belonged have long pleaded with the Government to close the loophole whereby young non-South Africans can avoid military service while young South Africans have had to do military service in their place, and very often have even had to give their lives in doing so.

We welcome and support this Bill which will now remedy this defect. We would not want as young South Africans those others who are not prepared to serve their country through military service and in times of need and of crisis. They remain foreigners. For that reason too we whole-heartedly support the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the one note which has been sounded by all speakers so far in this debate, apart from the hon. member for Sandton and the hon. the Minister in his introduction, has been the note of deep disappointment. It has come as a great shock and disappointment to the hon. member for Brakpan, the hon. member for Durban Point, the hon. member for Klip River and the hon. member for Simonstown that the Official Opposition is supporting this Bill. It comes as a great shock to me personally that there should be this disappointment. I would have thought that there would have been great rejoicing that there is unanimity about a matter which is so serious for South Africa today. First of all we had the hon. member for Brakpan. He began to quote from a newspaper while my colleague the hon. member for Sandton made it very clear that he denied that he used those words. Instead of accepting the word of an hon. colleague, the hon. member for Brakpan went on and gave him no chance to make a point of personal explanation.

The hon. member for Durban Point, in typical fashion, naturally had to have a go at the Official Opposition, a position which he would very much like to have right now.

I congratulated you.

There are ways and means of congratulating people! I am only sad that the hon. member for Durban Central did not speak instead of the hon. member for Durban Point. However, I understand that the hon. member for Sandton’s speech was so outstanding that they decided to say no more on the subject.

In particular the hon. member for Klip River talked about “half measures” and the “Yes, but” support which has come from these benches, when in actual fact it has been made quite clear, crystal clear, that we support this measure without reservation, with the proviso that there are serious consequences that flow from it, and if we were not aware of them we would be very stupid, let alone have little ability to understand what we were doing in this House. That is exactly what the hon. member for Sandton, and no one else, has done, i.e. to analyse the Bill both pro and con. I think that is part of the responsibility of any Opposition in this House, and indeed of Parliament itself. I am quite convinced that the hon. the Minister himself knows that there are very serious consequences flowing from this measure in terms of immigration, but when one weighs it up against what is happening in terms of the need for military service, then one has to make sacrifices, and that is exactly what we have said tonight. The hon. member for Klip River should know better.

We in these benches feel so strongly about the acceptance of responsibility in terms of military service that if we were writing this Bill we would even have gone a lot further. [Interjections.] That is right. We have said that anyone who has permanent residence should accept the responsibility of military service. It is not that we want to impose citizenship upon him, but we expect anyone who says that he is going to reside permanently in this country, to accept the responsibilities of military service as well. This goes a lot further than any other hon. member has suggested tonight. That is why the tragedy of this debate is that, instead of expressing their joy because there is unanimity in the House tonight, hon. members opposite have gone to great lengths to express their disappointment. They have had to rewrite their speeches in order to make it quite clear how disappointed they are that we have adopted the attitude which we have taken up. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Simonstown has stated again and again that he represents a small party. That is true. There is only one good reason why his party is so small and will become even smaller over the years. It will in fact become so small one will not be able to see it. That is why it is difficult for him to be a chamelèon. That is why he will perhaps not survive the next five years. [Interjections.]

We believe that if one is going to accept the consequences of this Bill, there is one matter which needs to be reiterated and underlined. That is against the wide background of South Africa and the conflict which we face today and the need for the resolution of that conflict. We do not merely need to have people in the military service of our country. It is not only necessary to tell those who want to come from outside to live in South Africa that they will have to accept not only the privileges but also the responsibilities. We have to face clearly, and right in the face, what we are doing to the large majority of the people who do not come from Europe, who do not come from outside, but who are born and brought up in this country. [Interjections.] That is the one factor, and the only hon. member who has mentioned this is the hon. member for Sandton. I simply want to underline it. It is at our peril that on the one hand, and by deliberate acts, we deprive people of their citizenship, and on the other hand we compel people to accept citizenship after a mere two years in this country. [Interjections.] I say we are doing violence to the whole concept of citizenship in this country, and no one outside and no one to the left of me can defend what this Government is doing in that respect. [Interjections.] That is why we support this Bill, but we hope …

But! [Interjections.]

… that sense will prevail so that the security of this country will be safeguarded, not only by the measure taken here, but also by the wider measure which will enable all South Africans to stand for South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I was under the impression that when hon. members support a Bill, they should put their case very clearly and unequivocally. Tonight, I almost imagined that I was sitting in an auditorium where the hon. Official Opposition was trying to impress the voters of Springs with a view to the coming by-election. However, the hem of the petticoat of patriotism which they are trying to show, is not as clearly visible as they would like it to be. [Interjections.]

When we look at this Bill, we note that it deals basically with citizenship. Hon. members on this side of the House referred very clearly to the letter of the legislation. However, more than the letter only is relevant here. The spirit of the legislation is also relevant. It is important for us to pay attention to the spirit of this Bill. Firstly, it is very clear that the initiative rests with the alien or the guest in the country concerned to choose whether he or she does not want to remain a mere guest of that specific territory, but in fact wants to accept citizenship. This is the first principle which applies. It applies not only to those who were not born in the territory, but also to those who already live here. Freedom of choice can be exercised. It is a privilege for any alien to become a member or part of a foreign community in a foreign territory if that person can enjoy the privileges, both literal and figurative, which that community offers him.

If we look at this legislation objectively, we shall discover that the striking spirit of the legislation is more important than certain far-reaching consequences which will flow from it Several newspapers have recently referred to these consequences. I say it is striking because in the first place, the initiative rests with the person who lives in the country concerned to apply for citizenship of his own free will. It must also be emphasized that the person who takes the initiative still has freedom of choice. In other words, he can choose to become a citizen, with the countless concomitant rights and privileges, but with duties and obligations too. That is why, in an orderly, developed, civilized and independent State like the Republic of South Africa, this move on the part of an alien to become a citizen will always be more initiated by the person concerned himself of his own free will.

This, Sir, brings us to the fact that this is a democratic action which is taking place. The person concerned will have a choice, a choice which will be exclusively his, to become a citizen or not. He will be able to exercise this choice after only two years instead of five, the period for which the present Act makes provision. The Bill therefore provides that immigrants under the age of 25 years who are entitled to permanent residence in the Republic, may become citizens after two years by means of naturalization if they choose to do so. Even a minor whose parent or guardian decided against naturalization, will have the right to exercise his choice on attaining the age of 21 years and to decide whether he wants citizenship or not. This democratic process is now taking its normal course, because the provisions of this legislation will now be applied to all juveniles in the Republic on an equal basis. Everyone will, inter alia, have the right and privilege of defending the country.

People for whom the Government has made it possible to make a good livelihood in the Republic are now being afforded an equal opportunity to show that they are prepared to make the necessary sacrifices, such as the right and privilege to defend their country. Is it too much to ask of a guest who wants to become a citizen and who lives here on the fat of the land, to make his contribution here too? If we take a look at the spirit of the legislation, it is clear that aliens under the age of 25 years have no more moral or other right than those of young citizens of the Republic to live on the fat of the land unless they are also prepared to safeguard what this country offers them.

I want to make a penultimate point, and that is that there are aliens who have already been living in the country for many years without ever accepting citizenship. However, that specific question is not relevant here. I am mentioning it because the question of loyalty is relevant here, the question of where one’s home is. If one is only prepared to enjoy, a situation like this grows intolerable in a certain sense. We do not need fair-weather friends now. We do however, need dedicated citizens who are prepared to sacrifice everything. If the Republic of South Africa means so little to young aliens that they get cold feet when it comes to defence and refuse to become citizens by naturalization of their own free will, they may just as well prepare to take their leave.

The acceptance of responsibility is being discussed here. The acceptance of responsibility is one of the basic characteristics of a civilized person. The Bill will not come as a shock to the alien who has warm feelings for the Republic of South Africa, nor will he consider it as such. It will rather be seen as a measure which creates a possibility for the doors being opened more rapidly to those who want to become citizens.

Compulsory military service does not exist for aliens in the Republic of South Africa. We respect existing international agreements. However, the generosity of the State can be exploited too far, and this may not happen. In a certain sense, the spirit of the legislation is just as, if not more important than the letter. Every sensible, sober, objective and patriotic citizen of this country, inside and outside the House, should therefore openly support the South African Citizenship Amendment Bill without any reservation. That is why I consider it a privilege to give this Bill my whole-hearted support tonight.

Mr. Speaker, this is really a fine evening in the sense that we are so unanimous about the basic principles of the legislation. Therefore, I want to express my sincere thanks to hon. members on both sides of the House for their support.

A number of questions were asked by the hon. member for Sandton. On the face of it he seems to be correct in saying that someone who is 23 years and one day old when he enters the country will not fall under the legislation.

His first argument against the legislation is that it may discourage immigration. The position is, of course, that my immigration offices all over the world will have to be instructed at a very early stage under the new dispensation not to leave prospective immigrants under any misunderstanding as to the provisions of the legislation, because I do not believe that people should apply for and obtain permanent residence under a misunderstanding. Of course, it is very difficult to say at this stage exactly what the effect of the legislation will be. If we have a splendid revival in the economy, if South Africa is a country which offers a good future to immigrants in all respects, especially in regard to the economy, the effect may be minimal. It may also be that this Bill may have a certain prejudicial effect However, we considered that aspect very thoroughly and we felt that internal circumstances and the objections of our own people were more important even if the immigration figure were to suffer.

The hon. member went on to say that having to take a final choice within two years would make matters very difficult for prospective immigrants who will be covered by the provisions of this legislation. I just want to point out again—I have already said this—that prospective immigrants will be informed of the provisions of this legislation. In other words, parents will come to South Africa knowing that they will have to choose within two years of their arrival in this country. For this reason I think that all things considered, this provision will not be too hard on prospective immigrants.

Furthermore, the hon. member objected to the listing of names in the Government Gazette in respect of people whose status has changed in that they used to have permanent residence and will henceforth have only a temporary permit or temporary work permit. Unfortunately this is essential, because it must serve as a notice to third parties, in this case the employers.

The hon. member for Durban Point also objected to a certain aspect and said that he would take it further in the Committee Stage. I think we should leave this matter at that for tonight and continue our argument about it in the Committee Stage. I should not like to commit myself to one side or another at this stage; we can consider the matter further in the Committee Stage. Since the hon. member for Durban Point has done a great deal of constructive work in connection with our defence in the past, I want to tell him that I am grateful for his support and I want to inform him that one of the reasons for the Government’s decision to proceed with this legislation was that according to our information, the English-speaking citizens in particular objected to the present state of affairs. It is at their specific request, too, that we have introduced this legislation.

The present position, of course, is that when an alien youth registers today, he must say on that occasion whether or not he wants to become a citizen of South Africa. If he says that he does want to become a citizen, he is called up for military service. If he says that he does not want to become a citizen, he is not called up. Now it is an alarming fact that the tendency among immigrant youths not to accept citizenship is increasing sharply. The figure rose from 66,58% for the period January 1971 to December 1976 to 81% for the period January 1977 to 31 December 1977. From the nature of the case, we have postponed this measure as long as possible. We did not want to introduce it too soon, thereby forcing the position in one direction or another, but in the light of this figure—a discouraging figure—we have been obliged to introduce the legislation at this stage.

I want to conclude by making a statement. Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will forgive me for reading it, because I want the statement to be absolutely clear. It reads as follows—

1. (a) a person under the age of 21 years upon application by his responsible parent or guardian as soon as he has completed one day of permanent residence in the Republic (section 10(4) of the South African Citizenship Act of 1949, No. 44 of 1949); and
2. (b) a person of 21 years or older upon his own application as soon as he has completed one year of permanent residence in the Republic (section 10(8) of the same Act).

I shall seriously consider granting earlier naturalization to the above-mentioned persons in terms of the special authority referred to above if they declare themselves to be prepared and if they undertake to perform services, whether full-time or part-time, which in the opinion of either the Minister of Defence or the Minister of Police are essential for or conducive to the defence or security of our country. This concession, if implemented, will be applicable to females as well. It goes without saying, of course, that the Bill under discussion is applicable to females as well.

With that I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all hon. members once again for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.