Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister, even at this late stage, to keep the Bill in question back to enable the Government to reconsider it. He has until May to do so. I should like to state my reasons for putting this request to the hon. the Minister. I also want to give a brief summary of our main objections to the Bill.

In the first place, the Bill affects the constitutional rights of the political parties represented in this House. Some are prejudiced by it, others benefit. However, to us it is the principle which is at stake. In matters concerning the parliamentary rights of political parties, a Government should not act unilaterally, but should consult with the Opposition beforehand and seek consensus for action, something it has not done in this case.

In our earlier discussions of the Bill the hon. the Minister advanced an amazing argument. He said that the restructuring, the normal election of the Senate, would not bring about a significant change. His exact words were (Hansard, 15 February 1979)—

I shall leave the last words at that for the time being. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that his facts were not correct when he said that it would not prejudice the official Opposition at all. What worries me, however, is that the hon. the Minister is laying down a completely new norm here as far as the election for the Senate is concerned. I want to know from him where that norm can be found in the Constitution. Where does the Constitution give the Government the right to make arbitrary, political assessments and to extend the term of office of Senators at its expiry simply because, according to the hon. the Minister’s opinion, a re-election will not bring about much of a change? It is totally inadmissible to try to apply this norm.

The object of the Bill is not to maintain the Senate as an institution. The Senate exists. The life of the Senate as such does not come to an end on 29 May, not as an institution. The Senate has not yet been abolished. There has not yet been anything official before us to make the abolition of the Senate an accomplished fact. I want to point out that the short title of the Bill states that the aim of the Bill is to extend the period of office of Senators. I want to deny, in any case, that it will not make much difference to the composition of the Senate if the Senate is re-elected at the usual time this year according to the Constitution. In the light of previous Senate elections we might easily get a change from 25% to 30% in the composition of the Senate at a re-election. The most important fact, however, remains that the degree to which a re-election will alter the composition of the Senate cannot be determined in advance. Therefore the hon. the Minister cannot be dogmatic about it For this reason it cannot be advanced as a legitimate consideration and reason for the present Senators to stay on after their term of office has expired in May.

The second serious objection we have against the Bill is that the hon. the Minister has only advanced one single reason for having introduced the Bill. That is that he wants to abolish the Senate at some stage. However, we now have to face the strange and quite unusual situation that the hon. the Minister cannot tell us when he intends to abolish the Highest Chamber. Last week he spoke—as I have quoted—of “the short time we still want a Senate”. “We” is the Government. He referred to a short time. However, when we asked him during the Committee Stage whether he could assure us that it would, in fact, be a short time— because this Bill asks for an extension of one year and seven months—and whether that would be the end, and when we also asked him for an assurance that no further extension would be requested to make it an indefinite period, he could give us no assurance that that would be the final date. He was not prepared to give us the assurance that a further extension would not be needed. In other words, the possibility is not ruled out that a further extension may be asked for and that the Senators may remain for an indefinite period. That it will not, in fact, be for such a short period as the hon. the Minister pretends, makes it all the more reason why we cannot support this legislation. Far from being a short time, as the hon. the Minister told us here last week, everything indicates that the Government has not yet taken any final decisions with regard to its proposed constitutional plans. Only yesterday the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations said the following in a Press Statement—

Now the hon. the Minister is anticipating matters. He asks us to vote in support of a Bill which anticipates this, and in anticipation he advances as a reason that the Senate will soon have to go. The statement by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations wipes from the table this one reason the hon. the Minister has advanced for this Bill and makes the Bill even more unacceptable to us.

In the third place, the hon. the Minister tried in the Committee Stage to make a big issue of the fact that the Senate itself accepted this Bill with one dissenting vote. However, this is not an argument in favour of the Bill. It only shows that almost all the Senators were prepared, for their own convenience, to extend their own period of office. Only one member, a representative of the PFP, adopted a standpoint of principle and opposed the Bill.

You have no principles.

I want to take off my hat to him, because that shows immediately that if the Senate is re-elected, we will immediately have a stronger and more determined Opposition there. As regards the basic reason the hon. the Minister advanced for this Bill, i.e. the future abolition of the Senate, I want to say only this to the hon. the Minister, and with that I shall content myself: We as a party are opposed to it, being in favour of a reformed Senate, a more efficient Senate as part of a federal Parliament. I just want to draw the Government’s attention to the fact—I am glad that the hon. the Prime Minister is present—that if the Senate disappears, the entrenched provision of the Constitution which protects the Afrikaans and English languages as official languages will fall away, and there is no constitutional way in which the entrenchment can be restored once the Senate has disappeared.

Why do you still want that?

This is a serious matter. The Government is tampering with fundamental principles, and that is one of the main reasons why we as the Opposition party refuse to become involved in the Government’s plans with regard to the Senate and to support this Bill. In all the discussions we have had up to now about this Bill, the hon. the Minister has not advanced one positive reason why the Senate, when its term of office expires in May, cannot be re-elected in terms of the provisions of the Constitution. Therefore we have no other choice than to oppose this Bill at this final stage as well.

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading I stated on behalf of the NRP that we were in favour of the extension of the life of the present Senate. If a new Senate were to be reconstituted today, the Government—and this is the reality which we face— would of course benefit most by such a step. We also kept in mind that this was only going to be for a very limited period. I do not accept the claim that to bring in two new back-benchers in the Senate on behalf of the PFP, would make any difference to the effectiveness of the Opposition in the Senate.

I am going to confine myself on this occasion firstly to the effect and application of this Bill. The Bills extends the life of the Senate for one and a half years. By agreeing to this a tremendous responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Government, and that is to use the time during which the life of the Senate is to be extended to the best advantage of all the people in South Africa particularly at this time when we are going through a critical period of our history, a period of constitution-making. This is a responsibility which the hon. the Minister must face. This is like a contract, where we come and say to him: Fair enough, extend the life of the Senate for one and a half years, but find a satisfactory constitutional formula. In this respect there are many prerequisites that must be met first. As far as extending the life of the Senate is concerned the hon. the Minister should bear in mind that it is not only Government members and not only members of this hon. House who can contribute towards constitution-making in South Africa, but that in a Senate there is a wealth of experience and political knowledge, also in regard to constitutional matters. If this extension is therefore granted, such a step will make far more sense if the hon. the Minister will allow those people a real opportunity to participate in the drafting of a new constitution. If we are to derive real benefits from the Bill the hon. the Minister should not do what we have been told over television he would do, that he will arrive here one day with a Bill and say that after its Second Reading it will be referred to a Select Committee …

Order! That is not relevant to the Bill under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I shall confine myself to the application of the Bill and appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should make use of the Senators during the extended period of 1½ years and that he should refer the constitutional plans to a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament before the Second Reading stage. In that way the Bill now before the House makes far more sense than if it is merely going to be passed as a matter of convenience and without anything happening in that period of 1½ years. If on the other hand people look back in future and ask: “What was it all about?” and find that that year and a half was well used, then we might have a situation in South Africa where there would be hope for all of us.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question of the hon. member for Durban Central, I want to tell him at this stage that the Government will devise ways and means of obtaining maximum cooperation in our reflections on the final Constitution. In this regard we should like to make use of the NRP’s assistance. I am not prepared, however, to commit myself at this stage on the manner in which this will be done.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made the surprising statement that by abolishing the Senate, we are abrogating the entrenched clauses. The hon. member was probably not present when the hon. member for Mooi River introduced a motion here last year. Our present Prime Minister replied to the motion on behalf of this side of the House at the time and dealt specifically with the question of entrenched clauses. It is not the position that if the Senate is abolished, the entrenched clauses will disappear as well. I can give hon. members the assurance that as far as the entrenched clauses in the new constitutional proposals are concerned, the Government will specifically examine that aspect and come to this House with proposals.

The previous hon. the Prime Minister said they could not be restored.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will just have to be patient and see what we come up with in this connection. We are not directly concerned with that today.

I want to reiterate that I have already said to the House that we are having exhaustive talks with interested groups. We are still rounding off our constitutional proposals and the final rounding off will be done after the talks have taken place. We wish to consider very carefully the constitutional proposals which we will ultimately bring before the House in the form of legislation. A Select Committee will be appointed. At which stage the Select Committee will be appointed, is irrelevant at this point. In the course of time we shall inform the parties concerned.

That is vitally important.

Then the Select Committee will also have to consider these proposals.

Will that be before the Second Reading?

I have just said that I am not prepared to say at this stage. We shall announce the Government’s intention in this regard in good time. Then there will most probably also be further legislation which will arise out of the legislation on the Constitution. For that reason the Government is asking for time till 31 December 1980. Humanly speaking it ought to be sufficient time, although, of course, I cannot say at this stage whether it is, in fact, sufficient time. The Government is not over-hasty in commencing with the legislation because we wish to give the groups with whom we are having talks, sufficient time. That is one of the determining factors. I, therefore, stand by the point of view that an extension of the life of the Senate entails a merely theoretic prejudicing of political parties, a theoretic approach of persons who are presently outside the Senate, but could be elected to the Senate for a period of a year and a half.

In view of the circumstances I am not prepared to comply with the request of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and I request the hon. House to accept this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House remain implacably opposed to the principle of extending discretion to an individual Minister. We believe it is bad from a legal point of view … [Interjections.]

Order!

We also believe that it is not good legislation, so in our view it should not be perpetuated. Discretion is too variable a factor, varying as it does with each individual. In this case the discretion is a power transcending that of a court of law … [Interjections.]

Order!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a power which not only transcends that of a court of law, but also a power that is dictatorial and frightening. It is the power to deport a person from South Africa, and it is the power to refuse people admission to South Africa.

What is being done here is to bring about a situation in which the powers of the court are being negated. After all, when a court has imposed a sentence, it has done so after evidence has been submitted in mitigation, evidence which has been tested, examined and cross-examined, evidence which has been given in public and has been accessible to the Press, evidence that has been weighed. In the situation envisaged in this legislation, what is being done is to discard the weight of that evidence. In cases involving a sentence listed in the schedule to this legislation, the court would have to consider whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment, knowing full well that that would lead to deportation. The courts would however, in terms of this Bill, be deprived even of that consideration, and thus this aspect is no longer a factor in mitigation of sentence.

The question is, of course, to what extent the courts would now be influenced, in view of the proposed legislation, when it comes to convicting an accused. We do believe, of course, that a Minister deserves and should be given protection, and extending discretion diminishes this protection. This applies to the present Bill, because in the Bill discretion is being increased. There should be clear-cut guidelines laid down whenever possible. One only has to recall the decision of the Attorney-General when he exercised his discretion in the matter of Gen. Van den Bergh a little while ago, a decision which caused consternation in this country, to see the ramifications of discretion vested in the individual.

In terms of the Bill the hon. the Minister will have the power of deportation, and deportation is a traumatic experience. It wrecks families and business ties. In fact, it is banishment from one’s very country of domicile. Let me put a question to the hon. the Minister. In exercising this discretion, where would he draw the line? If, for instance, three people have committed the same offence and one of them has been in the country for, say, a year, the second for 10 years and the third for 25 years, where would he find the norm on the basis of which to draw a line between those three people? Let me give a second example using those three people. Let us say that one of them has come from Russia, one from Yugoslavia and one from England. Is the Minister going to impose a deportation order on the person coming from England because he can go back there but not on the person coming from Russia because he cannot go back to Russia? You see, Sir, how the discretion works in this case.

Let me give a third example. Let us say that a person has been convicted of culpable homicide, sabotage or an offence under the Immorality Act. Is it not possible that the Minister of the Interior and Immigration may view an offence under the Immorality Act in a more serious light than culpable homicide? These are the variable factors when it comes to exercising discretion. That is why the provision should rather be narrowed than extended as we are doing here by removing the imprisonment that pertained before. At least, if a court did sentence a man to imprisonment, that could be taken as a guideline indicating that the case was so serious that it should be referred to the Minister of the Interior and Immigration for his consideration. It should not be based simply on a conviction. In any event, the conviction could be a technical conviction.

I submit to the hon. the Minister that there must be many thousands of South Africans, people who are entitled to live in South Africa today, who are so entitled for reasons other than birth or descent. If this Bill becomes law, the Minister will have to consider all convictions of persons in the category I have already referred to where such persons have committed an offence listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 1A. I may just point out that there are 38 separate laws listed in the schedules. Even a conviction of culpable homicide, which may be the result of a motor accident, will then have to be referred to the Minister’s department. Is all this work really necessary? Are the officers of the Minister’s department not already overburdened with work that we have to load them with all this additional work?

It has been argued that in fact the courts are not sentencing people to imprisonment as often as they did in the past. I would ask the hon. the Minister who advanced that argument to consider whether the reason for this does not perhaps lie in the nature of the offence. In other words, I submit that it is only when the courts regard the offence against the State as serious that they are imposing sentences of imprisonment while in the case of offences that are not so serious, prison sentences are not being imposed. Looking at the sentences imposed in courts of law and looking at the figures that have been produced in Parliament of people serving prison sentences, I do not believe that one can consider it the general rule that there has been a dramatic drop in the number of people serving sentences.

We submit that the whole approach is wrong. We submit that imprisonment should remain as a criterion for deportation and not simply conviction. Let us maintain the sanctity, reverence and status of our courts of law and not diminish or negate their status as we are in fact doing here. Furthermore, we remain implacably opposed to a man being sentenced twice: once by the court and once by having a deportation or banishment order served on him. By removing imprisonment, the position is being aggravated. Furthermore, we remain implacably opposed to the inclusion of commercial offences, such as an offence relating to price control, in offences such as murder, sabotage or offences relating to communism. To view these in the same light, just does not wash. We deeply regret, furthermore, that discriminatory laws such as the Immorality Act are now being perpetuated, in the year 1979, when we should be moving away from discrimination, and we regret that the Government has seen fit to let an opportunity go by when they could have shown tangible and visible evidence of their intention to remove discrimination from the Statute Book of South Africa. This legislation is a gross insult to the dignity and self-respect of every individual South African and to every person who visits South Africa as well.

I want to refer to convictions in respect of currency violations and other offences referred to in schedule 1, offences committed before or after the commencement of the Act, and respectfully ask the hon. the Minister whether he will obtain the record from overseas countries of these people who are to be evicted and, if not, how he will exercise his discretion in respect of the new exchange control offences which have been added to the list of existing offences. We must also remember that this power is so vast and frightening that it also relates to the admission of persons to South Africa. Are we going to have to screen people and prevent Siem from even visiting South Africa for purposes of their own by using this proposed legislation as a weapon? This Bill, other than extending the definition of a peace officer and providing for passport control officers, should never have come before us. I think our colleagues on the left, the NRP, have been persuaded by the arguments which have been advanced by the official Opposition. They have seen fit—and we value it—to support us and vote against two of the clauses of the Bill in the Committee Stage. Why cannot the Government see and accept our argument, as I have invited them to do, instead of showing an unrelenting, unbending and unconceding attitude in respect of all the arguments we have put forward? We are therefore left in a situation in which we can only show our opposition in the strongest possible way permitted by the rules of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am once again surprised at the fact that the official Opposition perseveres in objecting to the discretion of a Minister of the State with regard to revoking people’s residence permits in South Africa. Surely it is not a new measure which is being introduced by this amending Bill. It is merely an existing practice which is being confirmed. Nothing new is being introduced by this amending Bill with regard to the discretion of the Minister. In any democratic country in the world it is in the discretion of the executive to allow people as immigrants, as permanent residents of a country. It is in the discretion of the executive, as exercised by the responsible Minister. In any democratic country in the world it is also the discretion of the executive, i.e. the Minister, to revoke people’s residence permits. In the South African set-up it is no new or abnormal principle to leave this to the discretion of the Minister in such a case. I therefore find the objection of the official Opposition to this aspect, i.e. the discretion of the Minister, absolutely amazing.

I should like to refer briefly to an aspect which I also mentioned at the Second Reading. In South Africa we usually apply fairly strict immigration selection measures. However, as a result of the unusual circumstances in African States over the past few years, we have been much more obliging as far as our immigration measures are concerned. In the light of this we now expect these people who have been allowed in under the relaxed immigration measures, or even the relaxed measures with regard to the admission of people who are allowed in with temporary residence permits, at least to respect the laws of the country, especially the laws dealing with serious matters. In this case, where certain laws are mentioned, contraventions of which can be—not necessarily are, but can be—subject to the revocation of a person’s residence permit, this is fair.

The hon. member for Hillbrow once again tried to pretend that a contravention of any of these measures will necessarily cause such a person to be considered for deportation. That, of course, is a lot of nonsense. It is nonsense to try to pretend that all people who are guilty of contraventions of any of the laws mentioned here will necessarily be considered for deportation if they are not South Africans by birth or descent. It is, however, within the discretion of the Minister, in serious cases which may come to his attention, to consider revoking such persons’ residence permits. This is the only thing for which provision is made in this legislation. The Minister has the discretion to exercise this power in serious cases. There is no provision whatsoever which says that everyone who comes to South Africa as an immigrant will necessarily be considered as soon as he has been guilty of a minor contravention of any of these laws. I merely want to stress that discretion is a normal measure in all democratic countries in the world.

I do not want to repeat arguments with regard to exchange contraventions. That aspect was discussed in some detail at the Second Reading. The Opposition, however, persists in saying that it should not be regarded as a contravention which may lead to deportation. It is only as a result of the economic circumstances in which South Africa finds itself that we do regard this aspect in a very serious light. We have the right to regard foreign exchange contraventions, whether they are committed inside or outside South Africa, in a serious light. I want to appeal to the Opposition to reconsider, even at this late stage, their opposition to this measure. They cannot force a vote anyway, and therefore they may as well reconsider their opposition.

Mr. Speaker, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister indicated quite rightly that accessibility to the courts in respect of the withdrawal and refusal of residence permits, was in fact something which had been introduced prior to 1972. I think the date was 1969, but what is of interest to me, is that, because of this legislation, a heavy onus will rest on the Government in future to reconsider the introduction of accessibility to the courts in the case where refusal occurred, and particularly when it involves the substitution of imprisonment for conviction as a reason for deportation.

†I furthermore wish to make the point of view of the NRP very clear. In this respect I want to say that there are two issues which have been debated by the hon. member for Hillbrow as well as the hon. member for Klip River. My submission is that both those issues do not really form part of the contents of this particular Bill at the moment. The hon. member for Hillbrow condemned the discretion of the Minister as if it were something which has been introduced in this Bill for the first time. On the other hand the hon. member for Klip River is defending this point as if it were a principle which we are debating here for the first time. This is creating a wrong impression throughout the country about what this Bill is really about At this particular point in time the very principle at issue—and anyone reading clause 4 will be able to see it—is something that cannot be changed during any of the present stages of this legislation. From that point of view I should like to make it quite clear that the NRP, having considered its attitude towards the Bill, concede that that principle already exists in the Act and that it is therefore not possible to bring about any change of that nature in this amending legislation. To contend that it is in fact possible, is a useless argument.

The second point I also want to make completely clear—and I must add that I am also not in favour of people being branded first or second class citizens—is that, here again, the distinction between citizens by birth and citizens by naturalization is not the issue of the debate. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Klip River kept on belabouring that point, while the hon. member for Hillbrow was attacking it as though it was the very issue of the Bill. Those two points are quite clearly not the issue of this amending legislation. They do not represent new principles in this Bill. Even if this Bill is defeated here in the House—and that is the test one should apply—those principles will still remain because they are embodied in the principal Act.

That is merely extending a bad principle.

I now want to refer to another point which, I am pleased to say, the hon. member for Hillbrow pointed out. It is a point we definitely have to consider. This Bill contains a measure extending “imprisonment” to “conviction”. What is meant by this? It merely means that people who are repeatedly convicted of breaking certain laws in South Africa, but who can afford to pay a fine upon every conviction, thus succeeding in keeping themselves out of prison, can now also be declared undesirable inhabitants of the Republic. They will, in other words, no longer get away merely because they can afford to pay a fine. On that basis we are prepared to support this particular amending legislation. The other so-called issues are, we believe, not relevant in this instance.

Finally, I want to repeat that we consider it unfortunate that the hon. the Minister did not see his way clear to accept amendments relating to the Immorality Act. However, I believe we shall have to look at that again in future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Durban Central when he says that there is no new principle whatsoever in the legislation before us. As a matter of fact, even the fact that deportation may take place merely as a result of a conviction is a principle which was embodied in the legislation last year.

†Before replying to the hon. member for Hillbrow I should like to qualify an answer I gave him in good faith during the Committee Stage. In the Committee Stage the hon. member for Hillbrow asked me whether reservists and reservists of the Railway Police would be included in the category of police officers referred to in clause 1 and clause 2 of the Bill. My bona fide answer was that they would not be included. The position is that the Commissioner of the S.A. Railway Police has the power to exclude reservists from doing duties referred to in section 55 of the Act, and I thought that he would do so.

Since the matter was raised in the Committee Stage my department contacted the Commissioner about the matter. His response was that reservists are normally not used for the duties mentioned in section 55, but that he would not like to exclude the possibility of using them in exceptional circumstances. My reply to the hon. member’s question must therefore be altered accordingly.

*The hon. member for Hillbrow also spoke about dictatorial powers alledgedly conferred upon me in this legislation. It has been pointed out repeatedly that the powers of the hon. the Minister with regard to deportation do not involve any new principles, but that they are existing principles. The hon. member mentioned the example of two people who commit exactly the same crime, but who have not been living in the country for the same length of time. He asked what would happen in such a case. All things being equal, I should definitely have to make a more favourable decision with regard to the person who has been living in the country for the longest period, provided that the type of crime in that specific case justifies compassion. From the nature of things I should have to favour the person who has been living in the country for the longest period. However, I want to emphasize that we examine these cases very thoroughly and that the findings of the magistrate or judge presiding at such a trial are studied very thoroughly. Careful attention is given to any suggestion of his with regard to a possible deportation. This is also taken into account. I want to affirm once again that we study all the circumstances very carefully and that we even get reports from welfare officers before we decide whether someone should be deported or whether a crime is serious enough.

As far as overseas contraventions of exchange control regulations are concerned, it is obvious that I shall not let myself be influenced by unfounded information in this regard. I will gather reliable information in this regard before I act.

As far as the Immorality Act is concerned, I want to point out once again that this Act is not a new principle which is being introduced here, but that the provision is merely being moved from section 43 to Schedule 1. As I have said during the previous discussions of this Bill, I do not administer the Immorality Act. The merits of this Act can therefore be discussed under the Vote of the Minister concerned at another time.

I want to say to the hon. member for Durban Central that he must definitely make use of the opportunity provided by the discussion of my Vote to discuss once again the whole question of access to the courts. I do not believe that this matter is relevant now.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Administration was again subjected to severe cost pressure during the current financial year and the increase in administered prices, particularly of commodities such as steel, coal, electricity and fuel, adversely affected railway expenditure. However, due to positive action by Management with a view to the curtailment of labour costs, more effective utilization of materials and a reduction in the losses sustained on un-economic services, the department succeeded to a large extent in countering the effect of price increases.

From the documents tabled, hon. members will note that an amount of only R4,1 million requires to be voted to cover additional expenditure to be defrayed from revenue funds during the 1978-’79 financial year. The entire amount is required for Railways under head No. 19—Net Revenue Account (Miscellaneous Expenditure). This amount, which will be made available from savings on the existing appropriation, includes some R3,6 million to provide for the transfer of funds in respect of working deficits incurred on the Broodsnyersplaas/Ermelo railway line. In this connection it should be explained that the amounts received from the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs in respect of its proportion of the working deficits on this line during previous financial years must be reimbursed from future profits derived from the exploitation of the line and it is, therefore, necessary to transfer these amounts, which were previously credited to a working account, to a creditor’s account for this purpose.

Provision has also to be made for an amount of approximately R500 000 which is to be paid to Iscor in respect of costs incurred by the corporation whilst operating the Sishen/Saldanha project during the 1976-’77 financial year. As is customary, the revised earnings for the current financial year will be dealt with when the main estimates are presented to the House on 7 March 1979 and I shall therefore not deal with revenue prospects at this stage.

*I shall now deal with the Brown Book items. Hon. members will note that provision has been made for additional expenditure amounting to almost R62,5 million in respect of Capital and Betterment Works. This expenditure will be financed from savings on existing appropriations and no additional funds are therefore required.

Under head No. 1C—Construction of Harbours—an additional appropriation of almost R2,6 million is required, principally in respect of claims of contractors arising from exchange rate fluctuations which were accepted as payment after the main budget for the 1978-’79 financial year had already been drafted.

The additional appropriation which is requested under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—amounts to almost R31,3 million. This amount is required, inter alia, for a number of urgent works which during the current financial year were financed from the item “Unforeseen Works” and for which specific provision must now be made. Over and above that, permission has been granted for the purchase of a building in Johannesburg for office accommodation, the purchase of computers, data communication equipment and computer equipment, as well as the purchase of cartage equipment—vehicles and semi-trailers for container traffic—for which a total appropriation of R22,6 million is required during the current financial year.

In the main budget for 1978-’79, provision was made under head No. 5—Harbours—for multi-purpose bulk handling facilities (second stage) at Richards Bay harbour—item No. 1397. Further particulars of this scheme have now been obtained and a re-allocation of the headings of expenditure is necessary so that provision can be made under head No. 2— New Works on Open Lines—for the Railways part of the scheme, and an appropriation of approximately R1,9 million is required for this work during the current financial year.

The total cost in respect of item No. 25 of the Brown Book for 1978-’79—All Systems: New quarters, improve and replace, quarters for Whites, allotment 1978-’79—is now estimated at R16,3 million, an increase of R4,3 million. In this regard I must point out that as a result of the tight financial situation and the reduction of capital investment during 1977, no provision was made for an allotment in respect of departmental housing for Whites for the 1977-’78 financial year. As a result of housing problems, 141 houses must be purchased at a cost of R4,3 million and the existing housing programme must be accelerated. Therefore the appropriation for this item must be increased by the above-mentioned amount.

Hon. members will note that under head No. 6—Airways—provision has been made for the purchase of aircraft. It is our intention to purchase two additional Boeing 747 aircraft for the S.A. Airways at an estimated total cost of R102,7 million. A nominal appropriation of R100 is required for this—it is expected that R14,3 million from the Renewal Fund will be used for the purchase of the aircraft during the current financial year.

Under head No. 7—Pipelines—the full additional appropriation of approximately R5,2 million in respect of the additional pipeline between Durban and the Witwatersrand—item No. 34 of the Brown Book for 1978-’79—is required for the provision of tanks and a supply line at Ladysmith, the replanning of the route over Secunda, i.e. Sasol 2, and unforeseen interest on capital.

An additional appropriation of R23 million has to be made under head No. 8—Working Capital. Of this amount, R3,9 million is required in respect of the Railways and Harbours House Ownership Fund, principally for the purchase of properties on behalf of the lower salaried staff. This additional provision means that the total appropriation for the home ownership scheme for the current financial year is increased to R53,9 million. The balance of R19,l million is required to defray the expenditure in respect of the partial repayment of foreign loans, which was not anticipated when the main budget for 1978-’79 was drafted.

To summarize, the position is, therefore, that appropriations from Revenue Funds will have to be increased by R4,l million and those in respect of Capital and Betterment Services by R62,5 million.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find myself in a somewhat unusual position. It is a pleasant surprise to be faced this time with a Bill on additional estimates making provision for an amount of R62,5 million for Capital and Betterment Services and for R4,1 million for Revenue Services. In relation to the total estimated expenditure for the financial year 1978-’79 this is not excessive. It is roughly 116% of that I believe that the Administration is to be congratulated that budgeting this year has been more accurate than it has been for several years. In fact, I think I am right in saying that the required amount is the lowest since I have been in Parliament.

That is not very long.

Well, five years is quite a long time. It is even more pleasing to find that savings considerably in excess of the sums required are available so that no additional financing is required. Brown Book savings amount to approximately R145 million and they are indeed welcome. It appears that restraint is being exercised in regard to expenditure. The point has been made on many occasions by members in these benches that, unless the Railways Administration is prepared to exercise self-discipline, it is very difficult indeed to justify tariff increases.

There are a number of questions I should like to put to the hon. the Minister at the Second Reading and we shall ask further questions during the Committee Stage. There are several matters I should like to raise now. Firstly, I see that there is a saving of close to R6,5 million under the heading “Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works”. Two or three years ago I had occasion to express a certain disquiet at the situation with respect to maintenance. The Chief Civil Engineer had issued a qualified certificate on the condition of the permanent way. He said it was satisfactory subject to such restrictions as had been imposed by the staff position.

Where did you find that in the White Book?

It is on page 1 under Transportation Services. The saving under the heading “Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works” is given as R6 474 000. However, I do not think that the actual amount is important. What is important, is the question whether or not we can be confident that maintenance is in no way suffering. I do not know what the staff position is with regard to Maintenance Works. We have a slight worry in the back of our minds because of a previous debate on this matter. We want to make absolutely certain that maintenance is not suffering. I think it was towards the end of last year that the General Manager went on record in a newspaper report as having said that something like 12 000 jobs were going to be phased out in the Railways Administration. I wonder how many of these apply to maintenance and whether we are still in a situation in which maintenance personnel are in short supply.

Secondly, I was very pleased indeed to see that a saving of approximately R14,5 million was made in respect of traffic and vehicle running expenses in these times of inflation. I am referring to the item “traffic, and vehicle running expenses” under the head “Transportation Services” on page 1 of the estimates. It will be interesting for us to know how this has been managed, because at a time of inflation and costs escalating all the time it is a somewhat surprising area in which to save. It is very impressive. It has been interesting to read in the Press recently—I think it was last week—that a new major scheme to reduce costs has been launched. I understand from the report that plans are afoot to modernize something like 178 000 wagons at a minimal cost, we are told. This has to do with the new compression braking system. I gather that the approach to this scheme is one of creating more line capacity rather than new lines. This is highly desirable when one thinks of the astronomical costs of building new lines. I understand that in terms of money the short-term saving is going to be considerable. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us something about this and perhaps he will be able to use these benefits to hold down tariffs when he presents his budget next month. As he well knows, big tariff increases will have a very serious effect on the prospects for the recovery of our whole economy.

On page 1 of the Brown Book under the head 1B—“Purchase of Sishen-Saldanha railway line and Saldanha Bay harbour”—we see that there has been a saving of approximately R7,5 million. I do not know how this came about; it is a considerable saving. Looking at this it appeared to me that a programme was laid out for payments on this line. Not to have to pay R7,5 million which we expected to have to pay, sounds very good, but I am sure that eventually we will have to pay it. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us how this came about.

I now want to refer to items which are appearing for the first time, viz. items 16, 17 and 18 on page 6 of the Brown Book. These items have to do with the acquisition of the two buildings, in Braamfontein and Johannesburg respectively, and the acquisition of some land in Germiston. The hon. the Minister did mention it in his speech.

I am glad to hear that you are now busy with the additional amount, because that is what this discussion is really about.

If the hon. the Minister does not want me to congratulate him when he makes savings, I certainly shall not do so. It is in any event an unusual thing for me to be doing.

They can hardly believe it.

They can hardly believe it. I think it is probably the first time it has happened to him.

I accept your congratulations.

If the hon. the Minister accepts my congratulations, I hope he will be quite as ready to accept my criticism.

In respect of the acquisition of these two buildings one wonders whether it might not be more sensible to rent accommodation where additional accommodation is required. The cost of financing is still extremely high and, moreover, at this time office accommodation is available all over Johannesburg. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it might be more sensible to take advantage of a market favourable for renting to hire space rather than buying it.

It is also favourable for buying.

It is favourable for buying too, but at a time when one does not have capital or when capital is costing one a considerable amount of money, I do not know whether or not it is really an economic exercise to make this capital outlay. I see that the building in Johannesburg has already been bought on a ministerial special warrant. However, I should like to hear something from the hon. the Minister on departmental policy with regard to the merits of buying rather than renting office accommodation. One sometimes feels that perhaps there might be a little empire building when one has to build or buy additional buildings rather than renting them. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister speaking on the whole question of departmental policy.

Items 19 and 20 on page 6 of the Brown Book are also worthy of comment. In this case an amount totalling R16 million is to be appropriated for the purchase of computers and data-communication equipment, apparently again after it has happened. I presume the equipment has already been purchased, if one looks at the footnote. Obviously the result of this sort of computerization should be increased efficiency and a reduction in costs. Otherwise there is no real point in computerization. Again, reduced costs should be of great assistance to the hon. the Minister when it comes to balancing his budget without raising tariffs. I say that in a hopeful tone of voice although I doubt whether my hopes are going to be realized. When one is prepared to pay out R16 million for increased efficiency, one hopes that such an investment will pay off.

I now wish to refer to item 26 on page 7 of the Brown Book, to an amount of R1 800 000 in this financial year and a total of R4 500 000 altogether for additions to and replacement of vehicles and semi-trailers for container traffic. The question which flows from this is whether containerization is proving to be more popular at this stage than was envisaged. I must say that I appreciated the opportunity to go with the Railway group to visit the container depot at City Deep and I was impressed with the apparent smoothness of the whole operation and the fact that many of the teething troubles appear to have been ironed out.

We now come to a small item, but one which I find a little alarming, namely an additional amount required for the recreation club building at Uitenhage. This is item 13 on page 5 of the Brown Book. Originally Parliament approved an amount of R434 700 to be spent on this project, but we are now being asked to approve an additional amount of R108 000. This is a big increase for a relatively small account in terms of the total budget, but I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister concerning departmental policy with regard to recreation clubs. The question I would like to put to him is: Are recreational facilities of any kind available for Black employees in Uitenhage? Is any of this money going to be spent on Black employees? If facilities are not available for Black employees, we again find ourselves in the situation where we are practising discrimination. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can enlighten us as to how the Administration is approaching the whole question of recreational facilities for Black workers. If no adequate plans are in operation I think we must reconsider spending more money for recreational facilities for White employees only. One has to provide these facilities for all sections of the Railway staff, including Black employees.

My final query at this stage has to do with Airways transportation services on page 2 of the White Book. This shows an excess over the original estimates of R6 493 000 for working and maintenance and a saving of R5 357 000 on depreciation. The hon. the Minister did not say anything about these amounts. They are not large amounts when compared with the total that was allocated under these headings in the budget, but it just seems a little strange that there should be a saving of R5,3 million in the one direction and an excess of R6,5 million in the other. I always have difficulty in dealing with the Railways’ budget because it is such an enormous budget. When one is dealing with amounts in excess of R4 500 million and one talks about a few million here and there it sounds like a very small sum of money.

In conclusion I should like to say that the savings which the department has been able to make, as shown in these estimates, plus various other economies and moves towards increased efficiency, lead one to hope that when the hon. the Minister raises tariffs, as he undoubtedly will, the increases will not be a crippling blow to the economy and to prosperity that has become an annual event in recent years whenever the hon. the Minister has presented his budget. South Africa cannot afford a big rise at a time when our sensitive economy is delicately poised on the brink of some sort of recovery. I do hope that the hon. the Minister and the Administration will bear this in mind when it comes to the presentation of the Railway budget.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove surprised me. This year it is the eleventh time that I am taking part in the debate on the additional Railway Budget. Therefore I expected that the discussion, as on all previous occasions, would for the most part focus on a lack of planning. In the Hansard of the last 11 years the standpoint of this side of the House is documented time and again, viz. that the planning of the Railways is not only good but at times well nigh perfect. With reference to the Biblical dictum which urges us to persevere up to 70 times seven, I can say that I felt quite pleased that we have been able to effect a breakthrough within 11 years and be shown gratitude, because the budget is this time approximately 1,5% off target. It has taken a long time. To persevere, however, is to reap the expected harvest in the end. But I would have expected that, while the hon. member for Orange Grove came up with this fine and much appreciated breakthrough and recognition and an open mind as regards the Railways, he would have taken it a step further by referring positively to, and also giving credit for, the fact that we are dealing here with under-expenditure, under-expenditure amounting to R82,5 million this year. This also sounds innocent in such a big budget, as the hon. member quite rightly remarked. If we take into account the economic climate and the times that we went through until the end of last year, as well as the rate of inflation and the price increases, this is indeed an achievement to be proud of, an achievement which should not pass unnoticed.

If we consider—and it would be logical and justified to do so—that we should allow for an inflation rate of 10%, it means that the hon. Minister would have been quite justified in requesting an additional amount of approximately R113,7 million. Instead, the hon. Minister announces that he has achieved an under-expenditure of R82,5 million.

The period we have been through has not been an easy one. This hon. Minister is known—and it is his declared policy—for postponing increases in railway tariffs for as long as possible and, if they are inevitable, to keep them as low as possible. In order to accomplish this ideal, the staff and the Administration definitely had to pursue certain objectives, objectives such as the increase in productivity, minimal cost increases, and obtaining its rightful share in the total transport market of this country.

How were these objectives to be achieved? Remember, times have been hard and immediate results could not be expected. Results could perhaps be expected in the long term. It pursued these objectives, and it had to happen, it follows logically, that by the correct application of its labour force and by getting more work done with less staff, it increased its output, saved, and utilized material correctly and economically. The Administration had to make the most of its two most important resources, viz. labour and capital, and apply them correctly.

Last year I had the privilege of visiting Ermelo together with the hon. member for Orange Grove. While we were walking there along a very long train, I said to him that I should not like to live to see the day when it was used to make chicken coops. He replied: “That will be the frosty Friday”. I told him then to make up his mind as far as his public actions were concerned. I also visited the training centre for skilled and semi-skilled workers of the Railways in Johannesburg.

It is quite clear to me now why the hon. Minister could present an Additional Appropriation Bill like this one. The Administration had to reduce the unit costs and increase the returns without a corresponding rise in costs. In these extremely difficult times, the Administration succeeded. I think we should be failing in our duty as far as the record is concerned, if we did not refer to this.

Certain hon. members on both sides of the House visited those training centres with us. In this regard I call to mind, for example, the training centre for senior staff members to qualify them for executive posts. Evaluation of the work also takes place so that the qualifications of staff members can be synchronized with the work requirements. We saw this with our own eyes. I want to emphasize that employees of all the different race groups are involved in these projects. It was a pleasure to learn, during my visit to these institutions, that most of these projects were launched before most of the critics in this House and outside requested them. Already at that stage a start was made with these basic, extremely important and enlightened projects in the Railways.

We also visited the container yards in Johannesburg. If one wants higher production, one must be able to transport a higher tonnage of cargo in a shorter time and with a smaller staff. We saw there how reduced physical handling of cargo can be effected by means of containerization, traffic control and similar factors. These factors had to yield favourable results eventually, and this is what we see in this additional Appropriation Bill.

As far as passenger transport is concerned, rationalization has also taken place. In studying this additional Appropriation Bill I perceived in more than one respect the result of the policy and the scientific way in which the Administration approaches its responsibility.

To supplement what the hon. member for Orange Grove said, therefore, I want to say on behalf of this side of the House—and what is more, on behalf of that side of the House as well, and even on behalf of South Africa— that it is a great pleasure to put a feather of honour in the cap of the hon. Minister and of the Administration for the major national contribution they have made in a time when it was almost humanly impossible to do what they did in fact accomplish. South Africa saved so much in that way and the economy of South Africa and our growth rate was given a boost. For that we want to express our heartfelt gratitude to them.

Before I sit down, I just want to add that I noticed that in the course of his speech the hon. Minister referred to the Ermelo/ Broodsnyersplaas railway line. In this regard I want to ask the hon. Minister when he expects that railway line to be operative on a profitable basis if that stage has not yet been reached. I shall also appreciate it very much if the hon. Minister could give us an indication as to whether the Sishen/Saldanha complex is responsible percentagewise for the major under-expenditure in the sense that because of increased productivity, we have achieved higher returns by exporting from Saldanha.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Orange Grove, I too have been in the House for five years and I must say that it has become traditional for the hon. member for Witwatersberg to stand up and speak eloquent praises of the hon. the Minister and the Railways Administration.

Do you not agree?

I think he has been appointed as the praise-singer of the Railways in this particular regard. I am not saying that there are no reasons for complimenting the hon. the Minister of Transport this year. As has already been said, the hon. the Minister is asking for an additional amount of R4,l million on the Expenditure Account and approximately R62,5 million on the Capital Account. This is additional expenditure. What is more important, however, is that although he is asking for this additional amount, he has not increased his overall expenditure and he will thus have to pay for these additional amounts out of savings. What is significant, however, is that on the Capital Account there is a net saving of R82,5 million. I shall again refer to that later on.

I do believe that the Railways has surpassed itself this year with regard to this particular budget. If one studies the Expenditure Account, one finds various variations within the various heads. In the case of certain heads the variations have resulted in an overall saving of 1,2%, which is very good indeed. The over-expenditure amounts to 1%, and that is also very good. This has resulted in a net saving of 0,2% on a budget of R3 121 066 000, and I think this is exceptional. This amounts to a saving of R4,1 million, which is exactly the same amount as the amount of the additional expenditure which the hon. the Minister is now asking for. That means that the hon. the Minister and the Railways have been able to balance their budget perfectly to the last rand. On a total budget of R3 121 000 000 this is quite an achievement. It is natural, for me as an Opposition member, to ask: How has this come about? What has happened to permit of this rather phenomenal budgeting? I like to think that it is as a result of the work done by us in these benches. If one studies Hansard— as I have done during the past night or two— one finds that there has been this constant probing of budgeting methods of the Railways Administration. On the part of the Opposition there has been a constant call to tighten up the budgetary control of the Railways. If this is what has actually happened—and I like to think that it is—then I would also, like the hon. member for Orange Grove, like to compliment the hon. the Minister and also the men and women who have to do the work, the Railway Administration personnel, for the work they have done in this respect. It is indeed a remarkable achievement. If one looks at past budgets one finds that over the last five years the hon. the Minister has presented additional estimates which have varied by as much as 5,6% in 1976. Last year the hon. the Minister showed that there would be a decrease of 3,2% on the Expenditure Account. At that time the hon. member for Witwatersberg sang the praises of the Railways and waxed eloquent about the fact that to have a variation of plus or minus 4% is doing well. He said that to achieve a 1% to 3% variation is perfect budgeting. With reference to this saving of 3,2% he goes on to say (Hansard, 1978, col. 1400)—

This year the hon. member tells us that the budget is unbelievable. We like to believe it is correct, but the hon. member for Witwatersberg says it is unbelievable. I am beginning to wonder whether the hon. the Minister has been influenced by this new film personality we see on the screens of South African cinemas, viz. Superman. I wonder if the hon. the Minister is trying to prove himself as being South Africa’s super budget controller. I am not detracting from the fact that there has been this tightening up in the Railways budget On this side of the House we welcome it. But one may ask: What has happened to the economy campaign? Last year there was a saving of 3,2%. We were told this was due to the economy campaign. This year we find that the books have balanced perfectly. What has happened to the economy campaign this year? Was it not as successful as last year? There are built-in contingency factors in a budget. Surely one would imagine that these amounts which are built into a budget would have allowed for a slight difference in the final figures. It must mean that the amount budgeted for contingency was budgeted down to the last rand. I pose these few questions to the hon. the Minister.

We must also consider that there is still a few months to run and while we may be …

That is where the problem lies.

As the hon. the Minister says, that is where the problem lies. Right now we find that it is going to balance to the last rand. We still have a few months to run, however, and I want to reserve a little bit of my judgment until I see the final accounts. Then we will see exactly how much expenditure has gone into the running of the Administration. There is no report on revenue; so we do not really know how accurate the revenue estimates have been. At present we have no clear indication of the Profit and Loss Account of the Railways. We do not know whether the hon. the Minister is going to tell us in a few weeks’ time that he will have a surplus of say R60 million or whether he is going to show a deficit and that because of these reasons he does not have to raise tariffs, but be able to maintain the present tariff structure. We will have to wait and see what happens on that date.

For the time being we are quite happy to allow the hon. member for Witwatersberg to bask in the sunshine of this wonderful achievement. There are clear indications that there has been a tremendous tightening up of the budgetary control.

You are doing the “thank you” job better than we can.

With reference to the White Book, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us the reasons for the excess expenditure on depreciation under certain heads. With regard to railways, it has gone up by 2,8% which amounts to R6 850 000. The depreciation on harbours was up by 2%, or R1 622 000, while the depreciation for the airways has actually decreased by 9,1%, or R5 360 000. As these are fairly large amounts we would like to know the reasons for this. Depreciation is, after all, a fixed cost and I am quite sure that the Railways have registers of all their equipment and all their assets. So one should, I would imagine, have been able to estimate depreciation fairly accurately. Another aspect that causes us to wonder about this question is that the Brown Book figures on over-expenditure and under-expenditure on capital do not really tie in with these changes. For example, under the various heads, one finds that there has been an actual decrease of 32% in this year’s estimated capital expenditure in the case of Harbours. In the case of Railways, depending upon the head, the figure is either 10% or 27%. So there has been a decrease in capital expenditure under these heads during the current year. There has been an R82,5 million saving all round, and yet depreciation has gone up. I am not quite sure of the reasons for that.

Let me now refer again to the Brown Book. In spite of the additional R62,5 million, which the hon. the Minister is asking to have appropriated, there is the net saving of R82,5 million, which is 7,3% of the budget. This brings the total budget down to R1 055 million from the original estimate of R1 137,5 million.

The hon. the Minister and, I am sure, other hon. members as well, fully appreciate the fact that over the past five years I have been a constant watchdog of capital expenditure by Government corporations, Government departments and the S.A. Railways. This is something I have thrashed out in every budget debate. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister of the special meeting of the Select Committee in the Paul Sauer Building about 2½ years ago. It was then predicted that last year’s capital estimate was to have been R1 600 million. This was indicated on a graph we saw. The actual figure, however, was R900 million. They also predicted, at that time, that this year’s budget would be far in excess of R1 600 million. We see, however, that it is going to be about R1 055 million. I feel that these actual figures vindicate the stand that we in the Opposition benches have adopted over the past few years. I should again like to compliment the hon. the Minister on facing the economic realities of South Africa and also to compliment him on the efforts and advances he and his department have made in this particular regard.

We hear that the inflation in our economy is now beginning to recede or drop off. We are told that the economy is starting to pick up again. This is what I would have expected in the light of the very conservative financial policy that the Government—and I include, of course, the hon. the Minister of Transport—has adopted in recent years. South Africa needs a balanced economy, and to achieve this a service industry such as transport—and this includes the Railways— must ensure that its capital expenditure programmes operate within certain limits so as to ensure that the wealth-producing sector of our economy is not starved of vital development capital. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that if the Railways had continued with the capital expenditure programmes indicated on the charts and projections shown to the Select Committee 2½ to three years ago, the economy would not, I am sure, be in a better state than it is at the present time.

In conclusion I should like to say that we in the NRP do not just oppose for the sake of opposing. We oppose when we think we should oppose and when it is right and in the country’s interest for us to do so. As far as this budget is concerned, we feel that there are clear indications that there has been a tightening up, and for this reason we give the hon. the Minister our congratulations this year. Let me add that he has taken all the sting out of our tails in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to associate on behalf of this side of the House with the hymns of praise sung here by the hon. members of the Opposition as well. It is interesting to me that Opposition members claim that the success achieved with the present budget should actually be ascribed to the watchdog role they have been playing for the past few years in this House. One remembers very well the criticism which was still being levelled by that side a few years ago. Last year they became quieter, and this year they made an about turn and started singing hymns of praise. It is of course very easy to claim now that it is the result of one’s actions at the time that the Railways is now so much on target with their additional budget before the House at the moment. One must bear in mind, however, that three years ago there were major fluctuations in the economy in the course of a single financial year. For that reason one could not expect the Administration to confine itself so strictly to its budget as is the case at the moment. We find ourselves in a much smoother period than we did a few years ago.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also pointed out that the amount saved, was smaller than last year. He really ought to know by now, that when one prepares a budget, one also bases it on the corresponding amounts of the preceding years. On that is based the planning and the budget for future years. Since there was a considerable saving on the budget last year, it is understandable that the same saving could not be effected this year. Mistakes and unnecessary estimates, for example, have already been eliminated in the light of past experience and as the financial statements of the year in question show them up.

I want to draw attention to the Operating Account. I think this is a perfect budget. The budget amounts to R3 121 million and the Railways has remained on target. They are requesting an additional sum of R4 million, which is not actually additional expenditure, but which must be voted in accordance with the financial and accounts legislation of the Railways. It is cause for gratitude that the Railways could confine themselves so closely to this figure and that it is unnecessary to make provision for additional expenditure from the Revenue Account. I believe this is due to the savings effected. The hon. member for Orange Grove also referred to that He referred, inter alia, to the savings under two heads, viz. the saving of R6,4 million under the heading “Maintenance of Permanent Way and Works” and the saving of R14 million under the head “Traffic, and Vehicle Running Expenses”. This is attributable to sound management. It is clear that when we entered difficult years, the Railways concentrated on efficient management in particular. These savings are the fruits we are reaping today as a result.

To me, the best of all is that in spite of this budget the Railways were nevertheless able to extend their services over the past year. We cannot allow that to pass unnoticed. I believe everyone in the House and everyone in the country should take note with gratitude of the lines opened by the Minister of Transport, the S.A. Railways and the General Manager. I am referring to the fact that we have communications with Zambia again and that by means of the Railways we are busy creating import and export opportunities for our neighbouring countries. I think that is a tremendous breakthrough. In spite of the extension of its services, the Railways has succeeded, by dint of good planning, in effecting tremendous savings in their operating expenses.

There is another important aspect. If one looks at the savings in the Operating Account, the first question one asks oneself is: Has the Railways, as a national transport organization, achieved its objective? The answer to that is an unequivocal “yes”—they have been very successful, for we do not know of any instances when goods could not be delivered because of delays, and there has been no shortage of coal. In spite of the price increases to which the hon. the Minister referred, the Railways has succeeded in submitting this excellent budget to us. We take note of it with gratitude and take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading. I think not only the General Manager, but all the Railway staff and workers deserve praise because this is a team effort of which we are reaping the benefits today. According to the Brown Book, the original estimate for 1978-’79 is R1 137 500 000. There was a saving of R144 989 000 on that and now an additional sum of R62 489 000 is being requested. In terms of the Railways and Harbour Acts, approval must be obtained as regards certain expenditures engaged in. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to a few specific items. Items 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 refer to the acquisition of certain buildings, computers and data communications equipment and computer equipment. The hon. the Minister can in fact authorize those capital expenditures in certain circumstances, expenditures which must be given Parliamentary approval at a later stage. As regards the acquisition of those buildings, the hon. member for Orange Grove said that it would be desirable to institute an investigation to determine whether it would be wise to incur that capital expenditure when one can rent those buildings. I believe it will indeed be advisable, particularly in the present economic climate. I think times and circumstances are today fairly favourable for the purchase of a building. It has the additional advantage that one can centralize one’s staff and properly co-ordinate one’s work. It entails advantages which cannot easily be calculated in rands and cents. If one considers that the S.A. Railways is paying approximately R1,5 million per annum for the rent of buildings in Johannesburg, one realizes that it was a wise decision to buy these buildings. As time goes on, more and more of the Railway staff who are still working in other buildings, will be centralized in these new buildings.

The hon. member has also asked a question in connection with the expenditure of approximately R16 million incurred for the acquisition of computers, data communications equipment and computer equipment. In this case the Railways obviously conducted a proper investigation before they incurred that expenditure. When I inquired about it, I was told that these purchases will effect a saving. Formerly the Railways hired this equipment. Moreover, at the present rates of interest one can acquire capital more cheaply. If one could obtain this equipment more cheaply for R16 million, that would mean a substantial saving, even if it is only a saving of 1%. Actually one should congratulate the Railways for looking at these smaller things for it is in fact by looking at these small things that one saves large amounts of money. For that reason I want to avail myself of this opportunity to tell the Railways, the Management, that they have shown themselves to be wide awake by looking at these things. It is in the interests of the taxpayer of South Africa that they do these things at the right time.

The total amount requested under the heading “New Works on Open Lines” amounts to approximately R31 million, 50% of the total amount of approximately R62 million which is requested. In an indirect way this is in the interests of the Railways and the taxpayer.

I want to refer now to another matter which has also been referred to, viz. the additional amount of approximately R19 million required for the repayment of foreign and other loans and suppliers’ financing. I think it is important that some of those loans be repaid so that one can save on interest rates, because hon. members, particularly those on the Opposition side, maintain every year that we are paying too much interest and should not incur so many loans. I believe that now that we are in a position to repay these short-term or overseas loans, it is to a large extent beneficial for the Railways.

I should just like to refer to another aspect, an aspect which is also very important to me in the additional budget, viz. the financing of the capital budget. There are various resources which must be utilized for the financing of our capital budget of R1 137 million. Provision has been made for, inter alia, loans of R866 million. It is foreseen that the amount will remain the same in the additional budget. Further provision has been made for R100 million from the Reserve Account of the Sinking Fund. It is proposed that that remains the same. Then I come to an item which in my opinion is very important. I feel we should emphasize and highlight it. It is provision from Renewals Funds. In the original estimate, provision is made for R87,5 million from the Betterment Fund. In other words, under the policy of self-financing in the Railways, R87,5 million would be borrowed from this source. This is now being reduced to R8,3 million. In other words, the balance in the Renewals Fund is not being drained by R87,5 million, but the opportunity is being created for the reserves of the Betterment Fund to be strengthened by R80 million. Whereas in the past the Management was always in a vice—forced, in fact, into a straight-jacket in that it could only make use of certain channels for procurement of capital, the opportunity is now being created for the S.A. Railways to have a freer hand in manoeuvring and finding out where capital can be obtained. It is gratifying to me that while we know that the interest rates have dropped, and capital can be more easily obtained today, the Railways can now manoeuvre and can state that it will pay them not to withdraw the R80 million from their Reserve Fund, but rather to borrow it abroad or elsewhere, because in that way they can obtain it more cheaply. To me it is very important that we have reached that stage and that we can already see it in this additional budget today.

It is an exceptional privilege for me to associate myself on behalf of this side of the House with the hon. members who have spoken before me and to associate myself with their support of the Second Reading of the Bill. I can only say that it is an excellent budget and we are looking forward to the end of the financial year. I believe that then some people will have more reason to have their tongue in their cheek than is the case today.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark spent a great deal of time dealing with file savings that the Railways has effected in the current year. He mentioned these in the context of the increase in costs to which the hon. the Minister referred in his introductory speech. I would have thought that the savings to which the hon. the Minister referred would have been normal practice in any business organization. I do not think there can be any particular feather in his cap for the three or four reasons he gave for the savings. I think any business undertaking would have watched its expenditure, particularly when costs are on the increase. So I do not think the hon. the Minister has to come here for congratulations on that aspect. That is part of what the Administration is there to do.

I believe, too, that the hon. the Minister has taken this debate very casually indeed. He just says that he wants some extra money and he expects Parliament to allocate this money. But I believe that on an occasion like this the hon. the Minister should give us at least a run-down on some of the major items that are affected by these allocations.

I had the pleasure to visit the two great undertakings on our seaboard at the present time, Saldanha Bay and Richards Bay, since we met last December. This was not on a public tour, but private one of my own, and I was impressed by certain aspects and depressed by certain other aspects.

I would have thought, however, that the hon. the Minister would have taken us into his confidence and, in view of the large sums of money which are in fact at stake, would have told us, by way of a White Paper, a diagram or whatever, exactly how the planning has gone in respect of these two vast undertakings. There are various schools of thought on the general concept of these two great schemes and also on various details applying to both. I believe the hon. the Minister could just have said: “This is what Richards Bay looks like at the present time. These are the problem areas we have.”— because I believe there are some—“These are where we were luckier than we thought and this is what the place is going to look like in 10 or 15 years’ time.” He could have done likewise in respect of Saldanha Bay, where, I believe, there are also problems and also aspects in respect of which he has been more fortunate than he deserves.

I think in respect of all such undertaking the hon. the Minister should give us much more information than at the present moment he seems disposed to give us.

But these are additional estimates.

Yes, they are additional estimates. However, we are dealing with such important matters that, I believe, in this body at least we can expect a fairly up to date run-down on the particular undertakings.

I now want to refer to a matter which may take a fairly small place in these particular estimates. However, I believe it is an important matter. That is the accommodation for tug personnel. I notice it relates to Walvis Bay. I understand that, certainly last year—I do not know whether the position has improved—there was in fact a crisis during June and July in the personnel of the tug services in this country. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could indicate here in the House whether this is a special kind—it is Item 36 in the Brown Book—of benefit applicable only to Walvis Bay or whether he is aware of the tremendous competition that the private sector creates for the Railways in regard to its tug officers. My information is that, for example in Durban, which is the largest harbour in Africa, with more than 60 berths, at least eight tugs are required to be operational at any given time. At times last year there were no more than three tugs in operation. I do not know whether this posed a crisis for the private sector, but I would have thought that if those figures were correct, there certainly must have been many headaches in the Durban traffic scene. I merely ask whether the hon. the Minister, by this provision, is aware of the problem that exists, a problem which, I believe, also exists in other ports in this country. It certainly exists in Durban. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister has any specific suggestions to make in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, naturally I want to say thank you very much at the outset for the fine words which were expressed to the Administration on the additional estimates which were submitted to this House today. I think it is quite an achievement, particularly when one looks at the White Book—to think that we are dealing here with an appropriation of nearly R3 121 million. We are asking only for an additional R4,1 million.

Be that as it may, it is not often that one is praised in this House. That is why one must appreciate very highly the modicum of praise which one receives. [Interjections.] I appreciate it sincerely. Naturally I do not accept this praise personally. I also accept it on behalf of the Railways Administration in its entirety, on behalf of the approximately 260 000 officials of the Railways, officials who all played an exceptional part during the past year.

The hon. members referred to savings. I think that, inter alia, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said that savings were effected last year, and wanted to know what the position was this year. At this stage I want to say that during the past year we had the finest co-operation I have ever experienced on the South African Railways. This year a type of O. and M. investigation was instituted on the Railways, not from above as is usually the case, but from the bottom upwards, in other words the less important officials, for example a station master of a relatively small station, was asked what he could suggest to bring about labour saving in regard to the activities under his supervision.

I can give hon. members the assurance that we received wonderful co-operation. If an official from the top were to go to the station master and ask him whether he really needs those four people for that task, the station master would probably think that he might well need them tomorrow or the next day and that is why he would simply say yes. However, if one comes to him and asks him to make a calculation of the number of people under his supervision without whom he can manage, while a calculation is made from the top of file savings in which it is possible to share under the system which we have put into operation, one really achieves results, such as those we achieved during the past year. Fantastic results were achieved with the co-operation of the staff, and labour saving was effected right down to the lower ranks because they are the people who actually played a role in effecting this saving.

I want to make haste. The additional estimates are in fact a matter of questions and answers and consequently a great variety of questions were asked here. I shall simply deal with each question to the best of my ability, in the same sequence as they were put to me.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the maintenance of the permanent way and works and referred to the saving of nearly R6 million. I can only tell the hon. member that we have a clean certificate. He referred to a certificate of a few years ago to which a qualification was attached. This time, however, we have a clean certificate. In this connection it has been reported to me that apart from a saving in White labour costs, the decrease is attributable to the fact that fewer rails and sleepers were replaced, offset by increased expenditure in respect of mechanized equipment for the maintenance of permanent way. This is a concise summary of the reasons for our having had a saving here. The hon. member was concerned about savings on permanent way not being desirable. However, I can assure him that we shall submit a clean certificate in respect of the condition of the permanent way. The hon. member also referred to another saving, the saving of nearly R14 million in respect of traffic, and vehicle running expenses. The reason for that is that owing to the decrease in traffic handled, labour expenditure was lower. Then, too, lower freight charges were paid on coal conveyed per ship, and there was less expenditure on station equipment and on damages. This is briefly the summarized reason for the saving which was effected here.

The hon. member then referred to items Nos. 16 and 17 in the Brown Book, and asked whether it would not be better to rent accommodation instead of acquiring it. In reply to that question I want to furnish a brief explanation of the position in regard to the acquisition of properties, and I hope that it will satisfy him.

†As regards item No. 16—the purchase of Friedland Buildings, Smit Street, Braamfontein—this building consists of a ground floor and two upper floors. The property is bordered on three sides by Railway land and is as such eminently suitable for incorporation into the Railway complex to provide suitable accommodation for the storage of exhibition material for the Publicity and Travel Department, radio repairs, workshop and bedding store.

*The hon. member must accept that the situation of the building is a very important factor. If one could acquire a building which is so eminently situated, i.e. adjacent to Railway land on three sides, that is of course a very important consideration.

The hon. member also referred to item No. 17, and I should like to furnish the particulars in that connection.

†The present accommodation for the civil plant workshops at Germiston is inadequate. Provision is to be made for the acquisition of the adjacent stands. These buildings are eminently suitable for expansion of the existing workshop area. The municipal value is R484 570.

*The purchase price was R423 000, while the municipal valuation was R484 570. Surely this gives an indication that it was not a bad bargain.

Especially in Germiston.

This property, too, is very eminently situated and we believe that it is in the interests of the Railways that this land be purchased there.

Another item I should like to discuss, is item 18, for in this case a far larger amount is being appropriated for the purchase of property.

†Funds are to be appropriated for the purchase of Union Square Building. This 19-storey building comprises of office accommodation, a flat on the 20th floor and three floors below ground level for parking facilities. The municipal value is R4 907 000.

*The Railways purchased the building for R4 750 000, slightly less than the municipal valuation.

†At present the Administration’s lease payments for office accommodation in Johannesburg amount to plus minus R1 570 900 per annum.

*The hon. member can probably get an idea now of what amounts we are paying in this connection, i.e. almost R1,5 million for office accommodation in Johannesburg. Therefore I think it would serve a useful purpose if a building of this nature is purchased. I am quite prepared to furnish the hon. member with more particulars concerning this matter. When it was submitted to the Railway commissioners and myself by the Management, the particulars were as follows: The annual rent paid by the Administration for office accommodation rented privately in Johannesburg amounts to approximately to R1 570 000. Office accommodation for a section of the staff of the Chief Civil Engineer is at present leased in five storeys of the aforesaid building at the cost of R145 932 per annum. Consequently we were already leasing part of this building. The rental increases by 5% per annum. Here are the particulars of the building—

The municipal valuation of the building is given as R4 907 000. The building has been deemed to be eminently suitable and according to calculations it would be more economical to buy the building than to erect a similar building which would cost an estimated R5,25 million, and that does not include the value of the land. The submission to me was that viewed over the long term it would be cheaper to own rather than to lease the building.

In view of these circumstances I think the hon. member would agree with me that he would also have decided that it would be better to purchase the building if such a submission had been made to him.

The hon. member also referred to item 26, which deals with additions to and replacement of vehicles and semi-trailers for container traffic. He did not ask for details of these purchases but I can give them to him. The hon. member asked whether containerization was proving popular. So far we have received nothing but praise for our handling of the containers. I think that I can therefore reply in the affirmative to the question. The introduction of containerization may be described as not only very radical but even revolutionary and has brought about tremendous changes. As far as we are concerned the change-over so far has been very successful.

The hon. member requested particulars on item 13, which deals with the recreation club building at Uitenhage. The submission to me reads—

I should like to explain why these appear in the Brown Book. There are various items which are belated debits. While I am dealing with this I want to advance the reasons for various items now appearing in the Brown Book as belated debits and indicate why it became necessary for them to appear now. The explanation reads—

It is true that there are various belated debits on certain items. These were not included in the Brown Book because they were not expected to exceed R30 000. At a later stage, however, it was found that they did exceed R30 000 and therefore had to be included in the Brown Book again. That is why there are various belated debits.

The hon. member’s question on the recreation club building in Uitenhage was whether the money was also being utilized for non-Whites. I have no information on whether this expenditure is also being utilized for non-Whites. My surmise is “no”, because it is pre-eminently a recreation club for Whites. I have tried to get hold of the particulars. Consequently I shall inform the hon. member later, as is customary when I do not have the information at my disposal. I shall inform him later of whether non-Whites are also able to derive any benefit from this.

The hon. member also referred to page 2 of the White Book and said that under the head “Airways” the item “Working and Maintenance” shows an excess of R6 493 000, while under the item “Depreciation” there was a saving of R5 357 000. The reason for that is that we reduced the rates of depreciation after the main budget. We then came to the conclusion that the life of the aircraft would be longer than was initially supposed, and consequently the rates were reduced. Hence the reduction under the item “Depreciation”. However, there is also something I want to mention to the hon. member. In the meantime we have bought two 707 aircraft. In consequence the 707 aircraft have been removed from our books as items.

The hon. member also referred to the increase of almost R6½ million under the item “Working and Maintenance”. This is as a result of a general expansion of our overseas flights. As a result the costs involved are of course that much higher than we originally contemplated. This entailed the additional expenditure of almost R6½ million under the item “Working and Maintenance”.

The hon. member concluded by speculating on tariff increases. However, I do not want to speculate on that now, except to agree with the hon. member that the prices of commodities keep on going up. I should very much like to have suggestions from hon. members opposite on what we should do about the rising prices of all commodities. In addition the hon. member has probably taken cognizance of the fact that we have already announced that there will be a salary increase of 10% as from the April 1979 pay-month. In the coming year this is going to cost the Railways an additional R125 million, over and above what the increased prices of coal, electricity, etc. are going to cost us; not to mention the increased price of oil. But I do want to give the hon. member the assurance that we shall save wherever it is in any way possible. I welcome constructive criticism which can encourage us, provide us with advice and help us to save more than we are saving at present and intend saving.

The hon. member for Witwatersberg referred to the Broodsnyersplaas/Ermelo railway line. He asked me when this line would be profitable. On page 5, under Account No. 1901, there is a subhead which makes provision for the transfer to a creditors account of amounts received from the Department of Commerce in previous years, being its proportion of the working loss on the Broodsnyersplaas—Ermelo railway line. I assume that it was with reference to this subhead that the hon. member asked the question.

We are effecting this change for the very purpose of transferring the amount to a creditors account because one does not know in advance to what extent the amount paid in by the Department of Commerce is going to increase. According to the agreement we have a responsibility to the Department of Commerce to repay those amounts to the Department of Commerce—i.e. the Government—as soon as this railway line shows a profit. The particulars are as follows: During the 1975-’76 financial year there was a loss of R900 000 on this railway line; during the 1976-’77 financial year the loss was R3,6 million; and during the 1977-’78 financial year the loss was R2,7 million. Based on the tonnage indicated by the guarantors, our clients, and accepting that the present trend in connection with general traffic on this line will continue, it is expected that an working profit will be earned in 1979-’80.

In addition I should just like to draw attention to the fact that the capacity of this railway line is constantly being expanded and that, as a result of this expansion, the railway line will be capable of conveying 30 million tons of coal per annum by 1982-’83. By 1985-’86 we hope to be able to convey 40 million tons of coal per annum. I just want to say in passing that coal exports were one of the highlights of the activities of the Railways during the past year.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur put questions to me concerning Richards Bay and Saldanha. He said he expected me to furnish a more thorough progress report on these two important harbours. I have already furnished the particulars in regard to Richards Bay. The work is of course continuing on the general harbour which is being built at Richards Bay to handle general goods. The tonnage of coal handled there will increase and, as I have indicated, will amount to 40 million tons by 1985-’86, which is a tremendous amount.

As far as Saldanha is concerned, the picture is less promising—that is all I want to say at this stage—because the demand for ore in the present economic slump is not what it should be. I think I indicated last year in the discussion of the budget that a substantial loss is expected to be suffered on the Sishen/ Saldanha railway line because the export of ore for the current year will be approximately 13 million tons instead of the 18 million tons envisaged at the time as the breakthrough point for profitability. Consequently the Sishen/Saldanha railway line will not be profitable in the current year. As soon as the world economy and the demand for iron ore improves a little, one also expects an improvement as far as that railway line is concerned.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti complimented the Railways Administration and mentioned that according to the estimates of which the particulars appear in the White Book, the savings are precisely in keeping with the excesses. However, I want to point out that these are still estimates. That is why I interrupted the hon. member and said that the trouble was that we had not yet come to the end of the financial year. Nevertheless these, to the best of our knowledge and ability, represent what our expenditure position will be at the end of this financial year.

I have already referred to the “economy campaign”, as he termed it. The hon. member asked me why the amount budgeted for depreciation was exceeded, as indicated in the White Book. I should like to furnish him with the particulars as to why the depreciation was greater. In the operating account of Iscor—this deals more specifically with Iscor, although it is not so specified—in respect of the Sishen/Saldanha project for the period up to 31 March 1977, only the operating and maintenance costs and interest on capital were brought to account. No provision was made for capital redemption. It was therefore necessary for the Administration, apart from the deficit of R15,5 million which had to be repaid to Iscor in respect of this account, to carry over into its own books a debit in respect of depreciation. Final particulars of this account were only received from Iscor during 1978. In the case of the Railways the amount was R6,848 million and in the case of the Harbours it was R1,421 million. I think this is an answer to the hon. member’s problem. As he knows, the depreciation ought to be a fixed amount.

I think I have now dealt adequately with the matters raised by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark referred, inter alia, to the repayment of loans under item 37 on page 13 of the Brown Book. Although the hon. member did not specifically ask for particulars in this connection, I think it is desirable that I furnish them. I do not want to furnish all the figures relating to these loans, but only the reasons for this additional amount being requested. The submission to me reads—

These are the reasons for these additional amounts being requested.

At one stage the hon. member for Orange Grove asked how we determine our priorities. I think it is relevant that I refer to this today, particularly since he referred to the purchase of buildings and data communication equipment. I think this is a very important question, particularly in view of the speech made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. I should like to furnish hon. members with certain particulars relating to the determination of our priorities, because I think they will be of value—

The final meeting held under my chairmanship determines which items will be presented to the Minister and the Railways Board for consideration and final approval, subject to parliamentary acceptance.

This “my chairmanship” is not I; it is the General Manager. I quote further—

I have quoted these few paragraphs to give hon. members an indication of the extent to which a study is made in order to determine our priorities. The hon. member indicated that I had failed to give him the information which he asked for in regard to items 19 and 20. I shall now give him the concise particulars—

This is in respect of items 19 and 20. I have a great many more particulars on these matters. If the hon. member wants more particulars, I am prepared to make them available to him. The congratulations expressed by the hon. member for Groote Schuur were rather less unqualified than those from other hon. members. I have already replied as far as Richards Bay is concerned. I think the hon. member referred to item 28 on page 9 and then asked for particulars. Item 28 is described as “Walvis Bay: 20 houses for tug boat staff’. The particulars I have are these—

This is a case in which previous provision was made under head No. 2, but in which there has been a re-allocation of the work. This section has now been placed under “Harbours”. That is why it now occurs here. I have already furnished the details. The hon. member also referred to other harbours. I assume that the problem also exists in regard to other harbours. If necessary we could rather discuss that aspect of the matter during the main budget.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules:

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to gather certain information with regard to the Sishen/Saldanha railway from the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has already referred to this in his reply to the Second Reading. On page 5 in the White Book there appears, as the additional sum requested, the total of R515 700. This is an amount which was apparently not provided for at all earlier on. It is indicated here as an amount still owing to Iscor for a working deficit on the Sishen/Saldanha line. In the first place I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether this amount is owing as a result of certain agreements made with Iscor at the time when the take-over of the railway line took place. If such an agreement exists, an agreement according to which the Railways is liable for a working deficit before the take-over did indeed take place—that is as I understand it— is the position that it is a guaranteed railway line affected by this?

Furthermore I should also like to know whether it is possible that further amounts of this nature will be requested in future, amounts with which the Railways has to offset losses by Iscor when the railway line still belonged to it. Then there is another small matter which I should like to have cleared up. This concerns the interest on capital with regard to the pipeline, and that we find on page 3 of the White Book. Here we have a substantial increase in the interest on capital. I have looked at the Brown Book, but could not find a corresponding increase in capital expenditure with regard to the pipeline. Therefore I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could inform us about the cause of that substantial increase in the interest on capital. It is an increase of just over 33%.

Mr. Chairman, could I at this stage just add another question with regard to “Interest on capital”. With the fact that the dollar has steadily been falling in the international money market—and the rand is coupled with the dollar—has our loans position materially altered and is our interest payable on foreign loans materially different as a result of the falling dollar, and so of the falling rand?

Mr. Chairman, I have just one question to put to the hon. the Minister. Under head No. 6—“Airways”— on page 11 of the Brown Book, the hon. the Minister indicated during his Second Reading speech that two 747-aircraft had been ordered and that an additional amount had been appropriated for this purchase. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what type of 747-aircraft is going to be purchased? Are they the SP or will they be the standard full-length aircraft as we know them? Is consideration being given in the purchase of these aircraft to those who can give a longer range than those that we presently have? I ask whether the hon. the Minister will not seriously consider buying aircraft which could undertake a non-stop flight from the high altitude take-off in Johannesburg to any of the stopping points in Europe, preferably to Heathrow. We would be interested to know which aircraft these are and what service he envisages these aircraft can give.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the explanation which the hon. the Minister gave when he replied to the Second Reading of this debate in respect to planning. I refer to page 1 of the Brown Book. I can understand how it is possible that something like pipelines should be increased by 69% for the current year for additional expenditure. I can understand that in the light of our present fuel problems. But I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to heads Nos. 2 and 3. In the case of head No. 2 there has been a saving of R71 million, which is 19%, and in the case of head No. 3 there has been a saving of R33 393 000, which is 22,7% on the original budget When one goes to the expenditure of harbours there has been a saving of R18 246 300, which is 32%. These are rather major savings, so-called savings, because the way I see it these are not actual savings. They are merely projects which are not being proceeded during the current year.

On page 1, heads 2, 3 and 5, there have been considerable savings percentagewise, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how his planning team arrive at a decision as to whether or not they should continue with a particular project. After all, he has said that it takes three years for an item to get into the Brown Book. And yet it appears that all of a sudden, during one year, in the case of one head 33% of all expenditure on that head has suddenly been dropped. How does this happen? What are the priorities? Is there any clear indication as to what the real savings are—in other words, after completion of the project—as opposed to a project which has been suspended for the time being?

If we could get some of this information, it would give us a better understanding of what is actually happening.

Mr. Chairman, the questions are asked in fairly rapid succession and it is not all that easy to reply to them immediately. I think the hon. member for Green Point asked me questions with regard to the amount of R515 700. I shall furnish the hon. member with the particulars.

†Although the Railways took over the operation of the Sishen-Saldanha project only as from April 1977 its financial responsibilities actually date back to July 1976, which was the date of purchase. As all expenditure incurred and revenues received during the period up till 31 March 1977 were accounted for in the books of Iscor, an adjustment equal to the net working result for this project had to be effected between the corporation and the Administration. The original calculations indicated a deficit of approximately R15 million, which amount was paid over to Iscor. The actual deficit is, however, R15,5 million and a further amount of R0,5 million will have to be paid to Iscor.

*That is what makes the difference. The hon. member now asks me whether it would make any difference to the agreement with Iscor and the responsibility of Iscor towards the Administration with regard to losses on that railway line. The answer to that is “no”. We reached a firm agreement with Iscor with regard to the take-over of this railway line. At the stage we took it over, we estimated that there would probably be a loss of R15 million for the previous period. That R15 million was taken into account and was paid by us, for the purposes of our agreement, to Iscor. When the books were balanced later on, it was found that the amount was not R15 million, but R15,5 million. As a result of this there is now, in accordance with our agreement, an additional amount of R0,5 million payable to Iscor, and we are providing for that here. This, however, does not affect our agreement and the obligations of Iscor with regard to the losses on that railway line; this is merely in implementation of the agreement we concluded with Iscor.

The hon. member put certain questions to me with regard to the pipeline and I should like to reply as follows. As far as the exploitation and maintenance of the pipeline is concerned, there was a decrease of R236 000. This general decrease came about because the third pipeline has not been put into operation yet.

As far as the Net Revenue Account is concerned, there is an increase of R3 845 000 with regard to interest on capital. This increase is the result of an amended method of the division of interest between main services and auxiliary services. If the hon. member understands that, he is clever, but to me this is somewhat difficult to understand. [Interjections.] I believe that we should rather leave this part to the auditors. I want to read it for the benefit of the hon. member: The increase is a result of an amended method of the division of interest between main and auxiliary services. Inevitably in this process more interest was transferred to this service than before. This is what it amounts to.

I understand it. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the purchase of aircraft I have the details with regard to those aircraft we intend to buy. It is too wide a subject to discuss across the floor of this House …

What about Luyt’s aircraft?

That hon. member is completely off the track; we, the Railway people, are on the track. The aircraft we want to purchase are, as I have said, 747s. It is not the SPs, but the 747 Jumbo aircraft equipped with larger and more powerful engines. I am speaking under correction, but I believe that as far as distance is concerned, these aircraft will give the same performance as that of the SP. Therefore we shall be able to fly long distances with these aircraft. We have already said that it appears that the SP is built specifically for South African purposes, but it is not we who designed it like that, even though it suits the circumstances admirably. Since we bought the SP aircraft, we have already built larger and more powerful motors into the 747s. This gives better performance, and therefore the aircraft can take on bigger loads and transport them over longer distances. These aircraft we want to purchase now, will also comply with those standards. Obviously hon. members should keep in mind that if one wants to get the greatest possible economic benefit from one aircraft, one should not take off from Johannesburg—as a result of the high altitude—and fly the maximum distance, because then the aircraft has to take in a lot of fuel. One can derive greater benefit from the aircraft if one does not have to load that all fuel into the aircraft. I do not want to enter further into the economic aspects of the matter, except to say that this is more or less the aircraft we intend purchasing.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti put a difficult question to me as regards the priorities as far as Richards Bay is concerned. I think he referred to item 1, 2 and 5. I think, however, the hon. member should leave this matter until later on. It is too complicated to discuss now.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister was good enough to answer a number of questions I put to him during the Second Reading debate. He waxed almost lyrical about the co-operation which had taken place between the Government of South Africa, the Government of Bophuthatswana and the Government of Qwaqwa on the subject of the exchange of the land concerned. What the hon. the Deputy Minister has not told us, however, is what those people think who are actually involved in the resettlement Would the hon. the Deputy Minister please give us some indication—apart from the consultations at Government level—of what the attitude is of the people who are involved in the proposed resettlement? We would also like to know whether the Government has had the opportunity of going into the question of compensation because one knows from experience that when people are being moved there are all sorts of sacrifices which have to be made, and the question of compensation is therefore very important indeed in achieving satisfaction. We would also like to know who is going to bear the cost of the resettlement of these people. Is this going to be the responsibility of the South African Government or is it going to be shared with the governments of the other territories involved?

Mr. Chairman, in my reply during the Second Reading debate I think I indicated that a survey was carried out and that all of the 66 000 people involved had been consulted on whether they wanted to move to the new area or not. The 66 000 people indicated that they did indeed want to move to the new area.

*I said at that stage that I did not believe there had ever been so much consultation as in this case. Every person had an opportunity. We did not only have a meeting where people had to say what they wanted to do. There was an investigating committee existing of representatives of our Government, the Government of Qwaqwa and the Government of Bophuthatswana. The committee sat in various places over a number of months, and all the South Sothos had an opportunity to put their names on a list, thereby obtaining proof that their names had been put on the list to indicate that they wanted to move to the new area.

I should now like to refer to the question of Compensation. The new area to which the people will move will of course be purchased by the South African Development Trust. We are already planning the residential areas, even before purchasing the land, and as soon as the land is purchased, we are going to implement that planning. In other words, provision will be made for certain facilities.

Now I want to refer to the people as such. Those who have rights in Thaba Nchu, for example an occupational right, a grazing right, or something like that, are compensated, but those who do not have rights, in other words those who have just squatted there, will be assisted as far as their transport to the new area is concerned. However, because they have no rights, they will not be compensated for anything. They will, however, be transported by the department to the new area, together with their belongings and the improvements they have made there. Those who have rights will, however, be compensated.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

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

I do not want to make a long speech about this. I think I expressed our doubts, during the Second Reading debate, about the manner in which the amending clause would change the status quo of section 10(l)(c) of the Urban Areas Act. The hon. the Minister and I disagree about this. Our legal interpretation of the amendment to the Act differs. I believe without a doubt, however, that as the amendment stands at present, the unmarried daughters of a man who has the right, in terms of section 10(1)(a) and (b), to remain in the urban area for longer than the prescribed 72 hours, would no longer be exempt as they are in terms of the present Act. I motivated that point during the Second Reading debate by showing that when the amendment to the Native Taxation Act was passed in 1952, women did not pay any taxes at all and that therefore the “he/she” interpretation could not apply.

Since then I have had occasion to refer to the Hansard debates of 1952—and there is no doubt whatever in my mind that it was the intention of the Act to exclude the unmarried daughters of qualified men; in other words, to allow them to be exempted and to stay in the urban areas. I should like to quote from column 1276 of the Hansard of 18 February 1952 when Dr. Verwoerd introduced section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. In the Committee Stage he introduced an amendment to section 10(1)(a) and (b). He proposed to have a paragraph (c) added, and that is the operative measure we are discussing now. In proposing that amendment, he said—

Dr. Verwoerd then went on to explain that it was not his intention or that of the Government to split families where the father had the right to remain in the urban area. I think it quite obvious that this is the meaning of section 10(l)(c) of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Act Since it is not the hon. the Minister’s intention to change section 10(l)(c), I want to put it beyond all doubt that that will be the case, by means of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Houghton on having called such a good witness as Dr. Verwoerd. I hope she will do it more often and for that reason I shall accept her amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, I move that the clause be negatived.

Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment to negative the clause. I wonder whether he would mind motivating it.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the clause be negatived because it is a taxation measure for which provision will be made later during the session in taxation legislation by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

Clause negatived.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate we indicated that we regarded this particular clause with some concern because of the very great and far-reaching powers it gives the Minister to decide on the contributions to be made by employers or employees in the urban areas. We were also interested to know the extent to which there was going to be consultation with the people concerned, organized commerce and organized industry. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicated in general terms that, of course, the Government would not act unreasonably in terms of the powers given to it and that it would endeavour to consult on a regional basis with the people concerned. We are, however, still concerned about the fact that the measure which is before us now will give the Government and the Minister very considerable powers indeed. It will not only give the Minister the power to determine the size of the contribution to be made, but also to determine the purpose for which it may be used. We believe that this could open up avenues for abuse by the Minister. We therefore believe that, at least, there should be some limit suggested by the hon. the Deputy Minister. He is here given unbridled power to stipulate the size of the contribution to be made. He may or may not consult with organized commerce, organized industry, employers and others. I think he mentioned in his reply to the Second Reading that the situation could arise that he would discuss with mining interests what their particular contribution should be, and so on. There is, however, no guarantee that, once this measure becomes law, the Minister will in fact involve himself in that sort of consultation. What is more, there is no ceiling whatsoever set to the contribution. There could therefore be considerable abuse of the powers the Minister is taking on himself in terms of this provision. We are therefore very unhappy about this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the hon. member for Musgrave was really in earnest when he said that he was seriously concerned about the unlimited powers which the Minister would receive in terms of this proposed section, for if he were serious about it, surely he would have been able to move a proper amendment in an attempt to overcome and obviate his problems. The hon. member and his party have not done so and for that reason I believe that we should really take the reservations expressed by the hon. member seriously. We on this side of the House know that in the past this Minister, with the imposition of such levies, regularly held proper consultations with the parties affected by such levies and that these levies were only fixed after proper consultation had taken place. We also know that this previous levy was introduced a few years ago and that because of changed financial conditions it is now no longer adequate. Therefore, we on this side of the House do not hesitate to express our satisfaction at the amendment which is being effected by this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that the situation which has been sketched by the hon. member for Barberton, is quite correct, because this clause merely withdraws the limitation. It would, therefore, not be proper for us to move an amendment that a limit of R5 or so should be incorporated into the original Act. However, what we should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister—I have asked him this the other day—is whether he has any kind of ceiling in mind. I have a very serious problem with this. The explanatory memorandum informs as that the Minister may direct that certain funds should be used. The question of housing is also mentioned. The provision of housing to Blacks is becoming a charitable deed which can cover a multitude of sins. The word “housing” is used just as a catchword. When it is mentioned, everybody is supposed to jump to attention and say that they will surely fall into line.

What nonsense you are talking now.

It is a very real problem because the provision of housing, for instance, can cover a multitude of things. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister have any kind of ceiling in mind? Does he regard this now as an opportunity for him to cover the cost of Black housing? I ask this because I think there are other funds which are properly voted to cover the cost of Black housing. I do not understand why, in motivating this, housing should have been mentioned as being “die deurslaggewende faktor in die hele storie”. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us what he has in mind and why it was not perfectly possible for him to move an amendment which would still retain a limiting factor as a reassurance to the people who will have to pay this contribution. I think he must give us an explanation in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister and hon. members will pardon me if I briefly clarify the matter a little. All I ask for is a little help and friendliness. I believe that hon. members on that side of the House, as the hon. the Minister also said, are in complete agreement with us.

†The hon. the Minister said in a debate recently that we were determined to give the Black man in South Africa a meaningful life, and in giving him a meaningful life, we intended to do certain things. The main change proposed by this Bill is firstly the removal of the ceiling of R2,50, but as has been said at Second Reading, there is no question of there being no limit whatsoever. I can give hon. members the assurance that there will be due and full consultation with the people who have to pay this contribution. I quote the proposed section 2(5)—

That is an even further assurance. Even if a notice has been gazetted, it can still be withdrawn.

*I should like the hon. members to assist us here as regards the question of the R2,50 to which the hon. member has already referred. The R2,50 was applicable six, seven years ago when this Bill came into operation. We have to accept that even at that time it could afford people a decent subsistence on that basis. That the Government has an obligation in this regard, we all accept. In the second place it is also the duty of the private sector, the employer, to contribute to the decent subsistence of these people.

In the third place it is the employee’s duty. As to this aspect, I want to ask the hon. members not to see the Black man merely as a person who works for me from eight o’clock in the morning till four o’clock in the afternoon and then to forget him. I think that time is past and I believe that the hon. members opposite will also be very pleased to be able to participate by inspiring employers, too, not to see the Black man as a person who merely works for them from that time in the morning, but also as a person who is part of a community, who wants to associate with his own people and for whom certain services have to be provided. It is in that context that we subtract the R2,50 and also specifically state—

When examining the consolidated contributions, the hon. members will note that there are certain individuals who are at present paying R2,50, whereas the rest pay only R2,15. One pays R2,15 per month in respect of the eight hours per day which that specific person works for you. I do not have much sympathy for employers—I want the hon. members opposite to do the same—who only pay R2,15 in respect of an employee and tell him that they want to have nothing further to do with him. I think the employer should also understand that in that case he should see the employee as a person who also shares in a community and that he should also have other facilities at his disposal. It is with that object in mind that we want to specify the amount further so that portions of that amount may be utilized for a specific purpose, for example for housing or for the creation of an infrastructure or for whatever purpose the Minister wishes to utilize it at that stage.

I am asking the hon. members to see this amendment in the light of community development. Even though someone stays in Sea Point, in a slum area or even in an hotel, he is also entitled to participate in the community where he can enjoy certain facilities.

In addition I want to give the hon. members the assurance that we are aware of the fact that the Administration Boards are in a difficult financial position. Administration is necessary and nobody will deny that control has to be exercized over employers as well as employees. Moreover, no one will deny that a better service has to be rendered to these people. The levies received from the employers are an important contribution to administration. I know that the hon. members claim that the Administration Boards have certain problems, shortcomings and incompetent people. We are accustomed to such criticism, but we are trying to strengthen the administration in such a way that there is harmony between the employer and the employee. Furthermore we want to create a place in the community for the employee. I wish to give the hon. members an assurance which they in turn can convey to their people. If we can find an alternative dispensation in which we can allow administration to continue and at the same time ensure that justice is done to the community councils, if we can obtain funds, I shall certainly be the first one to tell the employer that he has done enough and in future may do less. I am able to give that assurance now.

The other aspect—and with that I want to conclude—is that we are well aware of the financial problems. I can give the hon. member the assurance—I have in fact cleared it with the hon. the Minister of Finance—that the department has requested that the financing of Administration Boards should be given top priority. That is, in fact, also one of the recommendations of the Browne Committee which is at present conducting a thorough investigation into the financing of local management throughout the country. If it is at all possible, I can give the assurance that relief will be given. It is, of course, true that another method of financing must first be found.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. the Deputy Minister ended his speech by giving the assurance that the whole question of the financing of the administration boards was being weighed up with the intention of trying to find better methods, because the present methods are hopelessly inadequate. As he knows, there are no business centres in Black urban areas and there are no methods of raising finance which the urban areas where White municipalities operate are able to employ. It is very important that this whole thing be reassessed.

I was not quite so happy with his analysis of the whole question of the provision of housing. I fully agree that employers do have a duty to seeing that their employees are treated as other than just labour units and that their housing and other needs should be considered. However, I should like to point out that the employers pay taxes in this country. They pay heavy taxes. They see it really as the State’s duty to provide housing for those sections of the community that cannot afford to house themselves. Indeed, this is exactly what the State does do as far as Whites are concerned. It provides sub-economic housing for White people who are unable to afford their own housing.

This is not so in the case of Blacks. Most people in this country seem to think that the housing provided, such as it is, in the Black urban areas, is sub-economic. It is no such thing. It is worked out on an economic basis and the rentals are worked out on an economic basis. The interest and everything else is recovered on an economic basis. I believe this to be wrong. I believe that the State should provide sub-economic housing for Black people just as it does for White people, because if the principle is right for Whites, it is also right, I believe, for Black people. Although employers are now used to paying these extra levies, I believe we do not look closely enough at the effect this has on unemployment.

I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he discusses this with the Chambers of Industries and Commerce, and when he considers the increase he intends to levy on employers per Black employee, will go into the whole question of what this is going to do to the unemployment levels in this country. There comes a marginal stage at which it is just not economic for the employers to retain their labour. This is a very serious thing in a country where there is already burgeoning unemployment among Black people. I hope that that factor will be very much in mind before the hon. the Deputy Minister goes ahead and increases the levy.

The other thing I want to say is that I agree with the hon. member for Mooi River when he wonders on what the money is going to be spent. As I have said, I believe housing to be basicall the responsibility of the State. I am not one for tied housing that ties the employee to the employer and makes it more difficult for him to change his occupation, and perhaps even to seek more remunerative employment. However, leaving that to one side, a lot of the money collected in the past has not been expended on housing in the urban areas. It has been expended on the homelands, and for all sorts of projects. I hope this is not going to be the case with the increased levies that are being envisaged in this legislation. We are going to vote against it, in fact. Nevertheless, the House will be accepting this measure this afternoon. I hope that the major amount that is to be collected by these increased levies will not be sent off to the homelands to hasten the whole separate development plan. If it is going to be spent, let it at least be spent on the people who are earning their money in the urban areas. Let them be getting the benefit of housing. However, this is not the case. Up till now we have had …

Give us one example of where money spent in the homelands has come from these levies.

Well, there was a time when …

Yes, there was a time …

There was a time, yes. However, how do I know the Government is not going to go back to that system again? This is what worries me. There was a time when the major amount collected from these levies was being sent to the homelands. I hope we are not going to reinstitute that idea because I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that less than 1 300 houses were built in Soweto during 1976 and 1977. The Board built about 1 300 houses in all during those two years, while we actually need about 2 000 houses a year in order to cope just with the natural increase. There is a shortfall of something like 20 000 houses in Soweto. At that rate we will never catch up.

I just want to bring these factors to the notice of the Committee before we vote on this measure.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton raised an argument to which I have to reply. As far as I know, the only money spent in the urban areas of White South Africa and channeled to the homelands is the amount of 0,25c on beer services specially set aside for the development of sport and recreational facilities in the homelands. That is the only money, as far as I know, that is taken from revenue. It is not even part of revenue and it is not being paid by the employers.

As regards the statement by the hon. member for Houghton that Blacks are paying economic rates for housing and services, I can give her the assurance that the standard international norm which stipulates that 25% of one’s monthly earnings is the maximum that should be paid towards housing is a formula to which we strictly adhere. I cannot think of one instance throughout South Africa in which a Black is paying more than 15% of his monthly wages towards housing and services. Meanwhile most Blacks are still being subsidized by other funds other than levies. Finally, I want to stress that there is nothing wrong with the employers. It is not at all wrong if an employer, when paying an employee his monthly wages, draws it to his attention that a sum of R2,50 or R3 is being paid by the employer towards the housing of that employee, and to put it to him that he should also contribute his share. Agreement could even be reached for that sum to be subtracted by the employer from the employee’s monthly wages. The employer can in turn claim such deductions on his income tax return.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to speak very long. The hon. member for Barberton suggested that we need not be too concerned about the provisions of this clause. However, the more one looks at the clause and the more one listens to hon. members opposite arguing the need for this clause, the more convinced one becomes that it is in fact a very drastic departure by the Government from its previous position. The White Paper which the hon. the Deputy Minister has been good enough to give us, indicates what the existing provision is. That is simply that, in the present position, there is, in the first place, a ceiling of R2,50. That is the maximum contribution that is to be paid. Secondly, it is stipulated that if increases are to be made in terms of the existing Act, they cannot be more than 20% at a time. Thirdly, it is provided that before an increase can come about, notice is to be given in the Government Gazette at least one year in advance. So these were very tentative steps in terms of the existing Act relating to increases in contribution. However, now one has a total reversal of the situation. We are now being asked to pass legislation, to pass a clause, which is going to take away the requirement of notice being given to employers, which is completely taking away the ceiling and which simply says that the hon. the Minister has a total discretion. It also takes away the provision that no increase will be more than 20% at a time. Therefore this is a total reversal and there is nothing to stop the hon. the Minister coming tomorrow and doubling the amount of the contribution without any warning at all. There is no provision in the law to stop him from doing so, and hon. members must not be surprised that we look at these powers, this change of attitude with a degree of alarm and fear for the future. Hon. members must understand that the Government is moving very drastically away from the position which they occupy in terms of present legislation. For that reason we find it very difficult, in the absence of any sort of indication on the part of the Government of some sort of ceiling or some sort of mechanism of consultation, to vote for this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have already given the assurance that there will be consultation with the employers.

There must be.

The second assurance which I gave the hon. member is contained in clause 13(d) where it is stated that any notice in the Government Gazette can be amended or withdrawn. Contributions can even be lowered after consultation. I have already given the hon. member that assurance. Thirdly, I want to stress that we are moving in a new era as far as community development is concerned. We have to have a share in this. Every employer must be concerned about what is happening to his employees.

Look at the Urban Foundation. They are concerned.

We cannot rely on other institutions. I am not concerned about the employers who have already played their part, but only about a certain section, and I am sure that it is the general section who is only concerned in having a man there for eight hours a day. That is the man I want to get at, and I am sure the hon. member will agree.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to labour the point, because I can tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are going to vote against it anyway. The point I want to make is that in 1972 the limit was set at approximately R1,05. It has now gone up to R2,05, subject to all the relevant provisions, such as giving notice in the Government Gazette, etc. What has happened now is that all of a sudden the hon. the Minister removes the ceiling, but does not tell us what sort of figures he has in mind. Is this 20% per annum likely to continue? Is it going to be 50% per annum or is it now going to be R10? What can we expect? The point is being made that there are new demands. Obviously we can accept that. The point is also being made that inflation is now imposing additional burdens upon the resources available. But simply to remove all control or simply to say that there is no limit I am not going to say that this is unreasonable or that he is going to impose huge amounts of employers, or anything like that I would like to know what the hon. the Minister has in mind. Is the 20% to fall away and does he think that 50% per annum is a reasonable amount? What exactly is the purpose of the amendment that is before us. There has not been a motivation for the way in which it is being done, nor for the amount that is likely to be asked of employers after consultation has taken place. That is what I would like to know.

Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. members on the opposite side the assurance that there will be consultation before anything is done. But I cannot say now that it should be R2,50 or R3,00 and write it in here. If something happens and we are compelled to increase the amount, we will then have to come back to Parliament to change the amount.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, during the course of the Second Reading debate on the Bill I directed an appeal to the hon. the Minister in regard to the composition of the council envisaged in this legislation. The hon. the Minister has a reputation for being a reasonable man. In the health field as a whole and among the various professions that make up the health field, he has built up the enviable reputation that he is prepared to accept reasonable representations and that he makes changes if they are seen to be necessary. In respect of this particular Bill the hon. the Minister is in the very fortunate position that the profession which the Bill will control, has given its blessing to all the provisions of this very substantial Bill. They have asked very sincerely, however, that in respect of one of these provisions the hon. the Minister should make a change, because the profession feels extremely unhappy about that provision and its implications for the profession. The provision in question relates to the composition of the council.

The dental technicians’ discipline is a distinct and separate discipline which serves the dentists as such. It is separate from that of the dentists, because dentists deal with the people and serve the community, the patients, while the dental technicians are the people who simply provide the teeth which the dentists fit. The dental technicians do not come into contact with the public and they cannot render their services to anybody other than dentists. They are therefore completely confined and restricted in respect of the people to whom they render their services. They can only take orders for their products from dentists and they can only provide their services and their products to dentists. In providing this service they experience problems with dentists about the type of contracts which are entered into, the type of orders, the details of orders and the tariffs and fees which apply. They feel, quite reasonably, that they would like to be master of their own house. They would like to have substantial control over their own discipline and their own profession. They would like to have a majority in the body which creates all the rules, regulations, procedures and standards which apply to their discipline and profession. They would like to be in the majority when decisions are taken with regard to the services they provide and the compensation they get for providing such services. I think that this point of view adopted by dental technicians is a most reasonable one. In fact, I know of no other statutory council of a similar nature, created by the Government, in which the members of the particular profession are not in the majority. This body will be the only exception in that the dental technicians will serve on a parity basis with the dental profession. And if problems do arise, they will be with the dental profession. They feel very sincerely and seriously that they would prefer a situation where they are in the majority. I do not say that the dentists should not be represented. The dental technicians accept that the dentists have a part to play and that it is worthwhile and valuable to have them represented on the council. I therefore move as an amendment—

The effect of this amendment is to reduce the number of dentists represented on the council by one in order to give the dental technicians a majority of one in the council. I hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accept this amendment, because in doing so the clause will meet with the approval of the dental technicians and he will have the full blessing of the entire profession.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to thank the hon. member for Bryanston for his flattering words, but I could not help entertaining the fleeting thought that Brutus was also an honourable man! [Interjections.] I of course meant this as a joke.

*On the surface I would be inclined to agree with the hon. member for Bryanston, because we have a council for dental technicians here. However, the whole framework of health professions in South Africa is different. There is the South African Medical and Dental Council which, as an autonomous body, heads all the health professions, such as medical practitioners and dentists. Together with certain members of the public they form the Medical Council, which we regard as autonomous. They exercise control over an expected 28 supplementary professions, which are semi-autonomous. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists, etc., have their own professional councils, but they are all under the aegis of the autonomous South African Medical and Dental Council.

We are concerned here with two interdependent professions, i.e. the dental technicians and the dentists. These are two professions which are intertwined. 666 enrolled dental technicians, who paid R11 380 in registration moneys, belong to this one profession. There are also 2 389 dentists who paid R37 718 in registration moneys. Over the past 30 years there has been a council for dental mechanics governed by the provisions of the Industrial Conciliation Act. In that council, consisting of seven members, there were four dentists and three dental technicians.

The council now being proposed, consists of 11 members. After the Draft Bill had been published on 14 September 1978 and after it had already been discussed by the existing council, on which serves the president of the association that addressed the representations to the hon. member for Bryanston, the council unanimously accepted that the composition of the new council should be as it is now set out in the Bill. There is no difference in the numbers and ratios. It is still five dental technicians, four dentists, of whom three are elected and one appointed, one Government official who is a dentist and one lay member, but the person with legal knowledge who can assist the board in its consultations. It is not the idea that there should be interest groups in a council such as this who continually try to outmanoeuvre one another. The existing council has unanimously decided that, if the Minister should agree that dentists may be elected in the same way as dental technicians, that will meet with their approval. As far as I know, this decision of theirs was taken unanimously; i.e. the president of the council concerned also signified his approval. I have not yet been furnished with further information in connection with the matter. The executive committee of the council—and I cannot identify them at this stage—has now, however, laid a petition before me in which they protest against the above-mentioned unanimous decision. Whereas I expect that these people will have further discussions with me, I cannot now take a unilateral decision on my own. We are dealing here with a council consisting of two intertwined professions. They cannot get along without each other.

A dentist can also be a technician. Only a dentist or dental technician may do tooth mounting, etc. That is laid down in the Act A dental technician may only work for a dentist. I am sorry, but I think that at the present stage and as the legislation is drafted, the composition is more in favour of the dental technician than it was before. In view of the fact that the dentist, as the figures indicate, constitutes approximately three quarters of the persons in the profession, I really cannot see how the dental technicians can claim that they should have a majority of members on the council. They can have a majority of members if they become a professional council in terms of the Act and under the auspices of the S.A. Medical Council. However, that is an entirely different matter. The professional council is now autonomous and they co-operate with the dentists and the person with legal knowledge who is there to give them advice.

Among the five dentists in the council is a Government official, and he is not there to choose sides. He has not done that over the past 30 years. He is there to give advice. However, the Government must be represented. Therefore, I am very sorry, but I cannot allow interest groups to be represented in a council in such a way and I cannot accede unilaterally to representations such as these, particularly not after I have consulted all these people. The council did consult this association and obtained its opinion. Thereafter the council again decided unanimously to retain the composition of the association as proposed in the original draft published on 14 September 1978, with only one change, viz. that three representatives be elected by the dentists themselves so that the Minister would not, therefore, appoint all of them.

I wish to refer to an objection raised originally by the association. They proposed that the Minister should see to it that four dentists, five dental technicians and one layman be nominated, elected and appointed as members of the association. That would mean that they could obstruct any meaningful decision by the council for ever. They also wanted me to give the president only one vote so that he would not have a casting vote. In other words, what they wanted, would mean that there would be a never-ending conflict between the interests of the one and those of the other. However, we are dealing with professional councils and statutory councils on which capable people serve, people who have to put the interests of the profession first.

I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment at this stage.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I see I am dealing with an hon. Minister who is not quite as reasonable as his reputation suggests.

Clause 6 contains an extremely serious provision. I quote clause 6(1)—

1. (c) who is not a South African citizen permanently resident in the Republic.

I think this provision simply means that any person who has been disqualified as a South African citizen and has lost his South African citizenship at the time the Transkei and Bophuthatswana became independent, is automatically disqualified from serving on this council, irrespective of the fact that he may have qualified and have been registered as a practising dental technician. I should like the hon. the Minister to give this House once and for all a straight, unequivocal answer, because I believe the time has come that we must know exactly what the policy of the Government is and exactly what the status and position of South African citizens are. The prevailing position is that the legislation in terms of which the Transkei and Bophuthatswana have already become independent simply states that all citizens of those countries or anybody who by association, language, culture or marriage can be considered to be a citizen of one of those countries, automatically lost their South African citizenship when those countries became independent. I know that the legislation provides that they can regain their South African citizenship provided they apply for the citizenship of an as yet non-independent homeland and have the support of the South African Government and the Government of the homeland concerned, but I believe that this provision will only be applied as an exception and that as a general rule all these people will in fact lose their South African citizenship. By virtue of this provision some 2 million Blacks who are permanently resident within the Republic of South Africa and who have qualified, registered and practised as technicians, are excluded from becoming members of this council because they are no longer South Africans in terms of the Government’s policy. I believe that that is the harshest form of discrimination; in fact, if that is so it is gross injustice. We have much evidence that that is so. A statement has been made in this House by the previous Minister of Plural Relations and Development, Dr. Connie Mulder. He has said that when all the homelands become independent, there would be no Black South African citizens. Later on he repeated this statement. We have waited for many months now for an indication from the hon. the Prime Minister, the present hon. Minister of Plural Relations and Development or any other Cabinet Minister whether that is in fact specific policy or not. There has been no repudiation or denial of this and there has been no indication on the part of the Government as to what its attitude is in this regard.

I think the time has come that the Government must be honest and straight with us and tell us what the policy is. Does that statement stand? I ask this because there is legislation which indicates that that statement is correct, the legislation in terms of which the Transkei and Bophuthatswana became independent. In terms of that legislation that principle was applied to those two countries and it can be predicted that the same principle would be applied to any other homelands becoming independent. Neither the Prime Minister of the time nor the present Prime Minister have taken any of the many opportunities which have arisen to tell us whether that is so. We should very much like to know whether that principle still applies, because if that principle and that policy do apply, a situation is created in which gross injustice and a harsh form of discrimination apply on Black people who have qualified, registered and practised as technicians.

When I asked the hon. the Minister whether there was any restriction whatsoever which prevented Black people from sitting for their exams, qualifying, registering and practising in South Africa, he said that there was no restriction whatsoever. The hon. member for Kempton Park indicated to this House that the Black people have a wonderful opportunity to practise in this particular field. However, it is humiliating to think that they are able to qualify, register and practise and are invited to participate in this professional field, but are excluded, because of their colour and the policies of the Government, from becoming members of the council which controls their profession. I should like to hear a straight answer from the hon. the Minister in respect of that. The hon. the Minister did say that the congresses of the NP would in due course decide whether an opinion of a Minister is in fact NP policy. That is completely and totally unsatisfactory. After all, this was a statement made by the previous Minister of Plural Relations and Development in this House. He said that if the Government’s policy was taken to its conclusion, there would be no Black South Africans. It is a harsh, devastating reality in terms of the legislation of this Parliament that citizens of the Transkei and Bophuthatswana have lost their South African citizenship and that that will be the case with citizens of all other homelands. That is the reality of the legislation and the policy spelt out in this House by the Minister of Plural Relations and Development, but nobody on the NP side has told us whether it is so or not. There has been no repudiation and no denial. If this Bill, this policy and this principle is accepted, we will be faced with a situation in which Blacks in South Africa will not be able to become members of this council.

By the year 2000—let us assume that the Government’s policy is taken to its conclusion—there may be 20 million to 25 million Blacks in this country. If the Government mean what they say with regard to their policies and attitudes, there will by that stage be many hundreds of Blacks, we hope, who will be fully qualified, registered and practising dental technicians. However, none of those people in terms of the Government’s policy and in terms of this Bill will be allowed to be members of the council and therefore the Blacks will be totally unrepresented. There can be no other words to describe this legislation than that it is the harshest form of discrimination and a gross injustice to the Black people of this country. For that reason I should like to move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, we of the NRP believe that the point raised by the previous speaker is indeed an interesting point and we shall be listening with interest to the answer given by the hon. the Minister in his reply to the hon. member for Bryanston. I wonder if one could not by way of example indicate that this is indeed a point worthy of discussion and consideration. To my way of thinking it would be desirable to have throughout South Africa, and Southern Africa for that matter, a standard by which the services rendered by such people as dental technicians could be measured, as uniform a standard as it is possible to achieve. If the Blacks are excluded from representation on this council and their numbers grow to such an extent that in one or more of file homeland areas they decide to start their own council or councils—let us say, the council for dental technicians in the Transkei—what we might find is that the standards set by such a council vary significantly from those that we apply in so-called White South Africa. I do not think this will be a desirable state of affairs. It would seem to me to be reasonable that representatives from those homelands should serve as members on the council in order to encourage the homeland Governments to strive for the same standards which we have striven for and which are reflected in the legislation before the House, legislation which ties up all the loose ends and presents a package deal which ensures that the public will be offered service of the best possible quality. For that reason I shall be interested to hear the motivation of the hon. the Minister for accepting or rejecting the amendment, which we support.

Mr. Chairman, this red herring has been drawn across the floor of the House quite often and I do not know why this matter should always come up when we are dealing with health legislation. I do not see the necessity for considering this possibility which is purely hypothetical. The way in which the Opposition wants to draw me into a political discussion …

Are you embarrassed?

I am not embarrassed. The hon. member referred to a statement made by a Minister; at the moment I am standing here as a Minister of this Government and hon. members must now listen to my statement. No Black person has ever been registered as a dental technician in South Africa. In other words, the hon. member’s question is a hypothetical question. In the second place, we are not taking away the rights of anybody. There are millions of Black South Africans at the moment, but we are not taking away the rights of any of them. That is also my reply to the hon. member for Berea. As I have said, the hon. member’s question remains a hypothetical one. If one day it comes about that a Black South African—and I repeat, a Black South African—becomes a dental technician, he will not be excluded on account of his colour.

He will be excluded because he is not a South African. [Interjections.]

There are 20 million or more Black South Africans today. It is that hon. member who is making the deductions, not I. There are almost 20 million Black South Africans now—there might be fewer later on; it does not matter—and I say that, if one becomes a dental technician, he will not be excluded.

In the second place, I cannot envisage that the day will ever dawn when there will be no Black South Africans.

That is not what your former colleague said.

It is I who am now making a statement. The hon. member must just listen. I can not envisage that the day will ever come when there will be no Black South Africans. Anyone of us can express an opinion here but, as I have said before, the factual position is that any such matter has to be endorsed by a congress if it is of sufficient importance. Although we do encourage Blacks to involve themselves with their people, to attach themselves to their homelands and to identify themselves with their own people, as I have said before, no Black South African will be forced to give up his South African citizenship and in this way lose rights such as those we are now discussing. I am being very straightforward about this. Hon. members have drawn a red herring across the floor of the House, but now they have my statement.

Let me proceed. Forgetting about all the hypothetical cases we have been arguing about and discussing, do hon. members know of any country that will allow a foreigner to be a member of a statutory board?

I know of no country that takes away citizens’ rights. [Interjections.]

That is not the point.

That is the whole point.

That is not the point.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.