Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I regret to inform the hon. the Minister that no argument which he has presented, both in the Second Reading and during the Committee Stage of this Bill, has convinced us that we are wrong in opposing this Bill, mainly on the grounds of the contents of clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 1, just to refresh the memory of the House, relates to an amendment proposed to the Trespass Act, in terms of which the fines available to judicial officers upon conviction under this Act, will be hiked up from a maximum of R50 to a maximum of R2 000. The prison sentences available to those same judicial officers will be increased from three months’ imprisonment to two years’ imprisonment. The further option that is now being granted in terms of this legislation, is to make it possible for a person who is thus convicted to be sentenced to both such fine and such imprisonment.

We are, however, now busy with the Third Reading of this Bill and we must at the present time look at the effect of this Bill once it has been passed. I will mention just a few matters relating to the clause which give offence. In the first instance I think it is fair to say that the ordinary offence of trespassing, which is committed when somebody walks across someone else’s property, will not be changed by this Bill, nor will the sentences be radically changed. Perhaps offenders will suffer slightly higher fines. However, the hon. the Minister talked about what he termed “serious offences” and said that he believed that serious cases of trespass required a more serious penalty. However, when one talks about trespass, what is a serious offence? Yesterday, there occurred an argument about the question of whether the element of mens rea was included in the offence. As we all know, mens rea is the question of evil intent, which is a requirement in most criminal offences if a person is to be convicted of that offence. I think consensus was eventually reached on the argument, that while there is no statutory mens rea and whilst it is not mentioned in the Act, the common law injected into the offence the element of mens rea.

Be a gentleman and admit that you were wrong.

The hon. the Minister is very pleased to hear me say what I have just said, but he will recall that I in fact said that across the floor of this House during the Committee Stage yesterday or the day before. When the Minister talks of a “serious offence”, is he in fact referring to a greater degree of mens rea being prevalent in the commission of that offence? If that is the case, what greater degree of mens rea can in fact exist when we are talking about trespass, than the total mens rea required to commit the offence of trespass—a clearly defined offence of being on someone else’s property without permission and without legal or lawful reason—namely that the trespasser intended to trespass? That is all the offence is about. If the hon. the Minister wants to cover an offence such as—and I will try to frame it in this manner—a trespass with the intention to commit some unlawful act and in that way importing a more serious content into the offence of trespass, we say to him that the current offence of trespass does not cover that position at all. Even with the higher penalties it cannot cover that position, because the total intention that is required for conviction is that the person is on the property, intending to be there, knowing that it is not his property, therefore being there without legal or lawful reason.

If the hon. the Minister is looking for a penalty to cover a more serious offence than the ordinary offence of trespass, then that extra intention that he is looking for will have to be proved. That extra degree of mens rea will have to be proved.

There is no such thing.

If that is the case, then I say that the person should not have been prosecuted under the Trespass Act but under some other legislation which would cover that extra evil intent. I see the hon. member for Mossel Bay is becoming impatient and somewhat excited. He must not get excited. We would like him to be with us still for a long time. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister is looking for a remedy to deal with a more serious offence, then we say that legislation should be brought to the House to cover the evil that the hon. the Minister intends to remedy. For instance, if it is a question of dealing with people who trespass on property which is deemed to be a national key point, legislation should then be brought to amend the relevant Act. If we are trying to deal with a situation where people trespass with the intention of committing robbery, then they have to be charged with something other than trespass. If we are dealing with matters relating to internal security or national security, then we should act in terms of the legislation relating to national security. But what has happened? What will be the effect of this Bill once it becomes law? This minor offence, trespass, has now been elevated to a status far in excess of the intention of the law itself.

When the hon. the Minister talked about sensitive areas a few days ago he admitted that those sensitive areas are not even designated and that many of those areas are unbeknown to the public.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister categorically across the floor whether this new provision could be utilized to combat unlawful squatting on people’s property or on State property. If the hon. the Minister does not give a categorical assurance on this the public will have to draw its own conclusion. Only time will tell.

I should like to read a small passage from The Cape Times of this morning. The heading of the report is “Pretoria bars Blacks from parks”.

That was a NP decision.

It was a decision by the NP city council of Pretoria. I quote—

[Interjections.] I want to read one further paragraph—

[Interjections.] In passing I should like to say that I see this as a very sad decision. I believe that that decision, and the publicity given to it, will do incredible damage to South Africa, to race relations here and to South Africa’s image abroad. [Interjections.] Imagine having dogs standing outside parks to keep Blacks from going in. [Interjections.]

Order! Is this relevant to the Bill?

I am going to relate it directly to the Bill, Sir, if you would just give me a little time. [Interjections.] Imagine dogs standing outside to stop Blacks trespassing in parks in Pretoria! Imagine building security fences to separate Blacks and Whites in parks! [Interjections.] For a party of reform to build these fences of shame means that one is treating Blacks like animals, and that is the way the world is going to see it. [Interjections.] What is the NP trying to do in Pretoria?

I therefore finally want the assurance of the hon. the Minister that these new penalties, a maximum fine of R2 000 or two years in prison, or perhaps a combination of both, will not be used to prevent Blacks trespassing on those little bits of green lawn in the city centre in Pretoria.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton began his speech by saying that nothing the hon. the Minister said during the previous discussion of clause 2 of the Bill could persuade the hon. members of the official Opposition that their standpoint was incorrect. I do not think that anything anyone could say to the hon. members of the official Opposition in this connection could convince them that they are wrong.

Not even the angel Gabriel.

I say this for the simple reason that the hon. member for Sandton, who discussed this clause on behalf of his party, displayed such ignorance of the law that one felt as though one were standing on the edge of a precipice. It makes one realize that no one will be able to get them to understand anything in this regard.

The hon. member argued that the hon. the Minister is now expecting a greater degree of mens rea than would normally be the case. Where did the hon. member for Sandton get hold of the idea that there is such a thing as a “greater degree of mens rea”? This is the greatest nonsense I have ever heard. Either there is mens rea or there is not. There is no such thing as varying degrees of mens rea. The hon. member must please get that into his head. [Interjections.] There is no such things as a greater degree of mens rea. The seriousness of an offence does not lie in the presence or absence of mens rea either. That depends solely on the specific offence.

The hon. member for Sandton went on to refer to trespassing and called it “a minor infringement”. It is not a “minor infringement”; it is an offence, and whether it is a serious offence or a less serious offence, it is not a “minor infringement”. On a previous occasion the hon. member himself admitted that it was a common law offence. Now, however, he is referring to a “minor infringement”.

Is a parking offence a “misdaad”?

Now the hon. member …

That is also a “misdaad”, but it is a minor infringement.

A common law offence …

Have you ever been in court?

… cannot be a “minor infringement”.

Of course it can!

It can only be a less serious offence.

Is a parking offence a capital offence?

Then that hon. member …

You are playing with words.

I am not playing with words, but there is such a thing as legal concepts, and misconceptions that are not legal concepts, but obviously the hon. member for Pinelands knows nothing about that.

I know of a higher law that condemns your action in those parks.

The hon. member for Sandton expects the hon. the Minister to give him the assurance that the maximum fine of R2 000 will not be imposed when people trespass in public parks. Is the hon. member so naive that he expects the hon. the Minister to say in advance, while he is piloting a Bill through this House to authorize a specific maximum fine: “I am saying now that the courts will not impose that maximum fine in a specific case”?

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the closing of the parks in Pretoria as announced this morning?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wasting the time of this House …

It is a very sensible question.

… and is concealing his ignorance of the law and the meaning of the clause under discussion by referring to matters which basically have nothing to do with the measure before this House.

It concerns trespassing.

We can discuss the closing of parks and the sharing of facilities on some other occasion. It is completely irrelevant now.

What is trespassing? The people are said to be trespassing in the parks.

This is the third time that this measure has been discussed in this House during the past few days. Suffice it to say that, if the hon. members of the official Opposition do not yet realize that they are trying to conjure up spectres that will not frighten anyone, nothing we can say to them will get through to them and any further discussion of this matter with them would be a complete waste of time.

Mr. Speaker, what we have really experienced in this debate over the past few days is the voice of Dave, but the brains of Sheena Duncan.

That is a very, very strange thing to say.

I am sorry to have to say that. I concede immediately …

No, you should apologize for that.

… that the hon. member concerned requires some support from time to time. Another thing is that in his contribution to the debate in the Committee State he wittingly accused me of acting in a particular way. I concede immediately that it was perhaps in a lighter moment, but he was completely aware of the circumstances.

What did I say? I cannot remember.

The hon. member says he cannot remember. In response, I should just like to say that, while he has really great potential, I think he is an exception to the law of gravity because he is sinking through his levity. The result was inevitable. The hon. member laboured under the misconception that guilt, mens rea— it is difficult to translate—was not an element of this particular crime.

It is not in the statute.

He says it is not in the statute, but according to the rules of interpretation and according to may a decision I have quoted to the hon. member it is required to be an essential element of the crime. [Interjections.] He concedes now that his premises were wrong.

I made that point. Read my Hansard. [Interjections.]

Sir, what are the effects? In compliance with the point made by Mr. Justice Curlewis, we will now have a statute on our Statute Book which will enable judges and magistrates to impose sentences in proportion to the severity of the crime.

How can one trespass be more severe than another trespass?

It is a crime. To the hon. member it is equivalent to a parking offence, and I shall deal with that.

Mr. Speaker, may I on this point just ask the hon. the Minister how one trespass can be more serious than another trespass, if “trespass” is taken as defined? Could the hon. the Minister just deal with that legal point?

Mr. Justice Curlewis pointed out very clearly that this particular kind of trespass was considered to be a very serious offence. It was not a squatter; it was an individual entering a house without the permission of the lawful occupier and without giving a lawful explanation. The judge said that the court was bound by the prescribed penalty and he suggested to the legislature that we should increase the penalty. We are acceding to that in this Bill. It is not a parking offence. I am very concerned that the hon. member now equates an ordinary parking offence with a trespass, after all there can be trespass on land by a person who intends to steal livestock. It could be a person intending to break up a party, someone who is infringing on the privacy of people. It could be a person who intends to commit housebreaking or theft.

Then prove those offences.

The hon. member does not understand that we are dealing with fundamentals. We are not dealing with a particular category of trespass; we are dealing with fundamentals.

*In my reply to the Second Reading debate I indicated that what we were doing here was to provide that those who imposed sentences would be in a position to impose a sentence in accordance with the gravity of the offence. What has happened, here, however? It is clear from this debate that the hon. members of the PFP emerge as the guardians of those who commit serious forms of offence and entry. The hon. members emerge as the guardians of those people. The hon. member suggests a punishment that is so light as to make the request of Mr. Justice Curlewis look ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Sir, you have ruled in the past that hon. members of the Opposition may not be described as protectors of communism or communists. Yet the hon. the Minister has just said that we are the protectors of people who commit crime. I believe that has exactly the same connotation. Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask that you ask the hon. the Minister to withdraw those words and to express himself in a different manner.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister did not say that hon. members of the Opposition were protectors of offenders. He said that they emerged as the guardians of people who commit crime. I suggest that there is a significant difference between the two.

You are playing with words.

Order! Will the hon. the Minister please repeat his words.

Mr. Speaker, I said that the hon. members of the Opposition emerged as the guardians of the people I described, and what followed.

I am not going to ask the hon. the Minister to withdraw the words, but he should be more careful in his choice of words.

Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly be more particular in my description of the Opposition. How will things look in practice? Hon. members are fully entitled to ask what the practical situation is going to be. Their argument concerning the degree of mens rea, of guilt, that the degree of guilt must be incorporated in the Bill, is untenable. Either there is guilt or there is not. Nevertheless the punishment is determined by the gravity of the crime. How is the gravity of the crime determined? This is done by hearing evidence that has to be led. Hon. members of the PFP, through the hon. member for Houghton, have in the past had a great deal to say about the Viljoen Commission. However, I have never heard her finding fault with some of the statements and recommendations of that commission, those to the effect that prosecutors—the Attorney-General and his team—should have a greater share in the imposition of sentences. What share must they have in them? After all, they have to submit evidence to court concerning the gravity of the crime. Surely that is still the situation. Therefore it will also happen in practice that if no evidence can be submitted by the Attorney-General or by the Public Prosecutor in order to indicate the gravity of a crime, a heavy sentence will not be imposed. In this regard I wish to refer to an Appeal Court finding by Appeal Judge Mr. Justice Trengrove—a 1978 finding—in which he very clearly indicates that in the case of dagga cases—this was the case of the State vs. Smith —certain maximum fines were in fact prescribed. I know of course that hon. members of the PFP are also fairly sensitive about matter of this nature. However, the judge indicated very clearly that it did not necessarily follow that the maximum sentence was imposed. He said that the maximum sentence was only imposed in exceptional and extremely serious cases. That is exactly what he said. I therefore believe that hon. members opposite need not be concerned about this.

For the rest, however, what will the situation be in practice? Only a magistrate will be entitled to impose a sentence, in terms of his jurisdiction, of imprisonment of one year or a maximum fine of R1 000. However, that fine of his will be subject to review. The same will apply in the case of a regional court magistrate. If either of the two officials mentioned have not completed more than seven years’ service on the bench, the sentence imposed will be subject to review. If that sentence, imposed within the jurisdiction of the magistrate—a sentence of one year’s imprisonment or a fine of R1 000—does exceed a certain term or a certain amount—viz. a term of three months’ imprisonment, or a specific fine that is in accordance with that—the case in question is automatically reviewed. Therefore this means that even if it is within the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court, the case will not necessarily be closed there and then. If the sentence exceeds a term of three months imprisonment, the case is reviewed automatically. I think hon. members of the PFP should take cognizance of this.

The Attorney-General or the Public Prosecutor will only refer a case to the regional court or to the Supreme Court—where a heavier sentence may be imposed—if the evidence at their disposal justifies it. After all, we can imagine that when a case is brought before the regional court or the Supreme Court, and it is found that it is not justified, what would happen then? Both the Attorney-General and the Public Prosecutor—particularly, however, the Attorney-General—would be severely reprimanded. That would certainly happen. However, I do not know of a single case in which an Attorney-General has been reprimanded for having used his discretion wrongly. Cases have, it is true, been referred back to the Attorney-General. However, in each instance this has been a case in which the bona fides of the Attorney-General could not be questioned on the basis of the evidence at his disposal. If an Attorney-General has to decide between a case in which a smaller sentence is stipulated, as against this heavier sentence—and I have consulted the Attorney-General in this regard—he would in any event be guided by the gravity of the evidence at his disposal before deciding to charge someone with regard to a more serious crime—viz. one or other category of offence.

I really regret the fact that the hon. member for Albany is not present at the moment so that we could hear from him how he felt about the fact that the hon. member for Sandton suggested such a light sentence for those who trespassed on properties, possibly with a view to committing cattle theft. The hon. member for King William’s Town pointed out very pertinently that this, too, was indeed one of the categories in question. However, I am not going to say to the hon. member for Sandton today that this provision will apply to any specific category of offence, e.g. squatting. That I shall certainly not say. However, I did say that it could well include a serious form of squatting. I said to hon. members that this could be the case but I added that it was not predominant. I said this during my Second Reading speech. [Interjections.] I am not going to reply to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens now. He is obsessed with a specific category and I am not going to discuss that now. [Interjections.] I say that we are dealing with fundamental matters, with principles, and I wish to repeat that it may happen here that a specific category could be affected which hon. members opposite are today telling me should be excluded. That I shall not do.

What are you hiding?

I give the hon. member the assurance that in considering this we dealt with the fundamental issue, and that is that for a serious form of offence, there is at the disposal of our legal draughtsmen …

Such as?

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to argue with the hon. member for Hillbrow. We have been arguing about this the whole day and he still does not understand it. He is making a fool of himself about the question of mens rea. [Interjections.] He made a fool of himself about it and now he comes along and asks ridiculous questions as well. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, before you call me to order I want to apologize to the hon. member for Hillbrow for having addressed him in that way. It is not my nature to do so. [Interjections.] It is not my nature and I apologize to the hon. member. The fact is that if the hon. member had listened he would have heard that I was discussing fundamental issues and that I indicated that the gravity of the evidence would determine how serious the offence was. I think the hon. member will understand full well that by this means I may also be able to deal with, and include in this category, those people in his own constituency who gate-crash parties and break them up and inconvenience people. They could also be affected. Would he object to that? I do not believe so, Sir.

I wish to conclude by saying that we have become unnecessarily serious about a very simple provision, that is very well intended, and is aimed at maintaining law and order in South Africa and ensuring that our law courts are able to impose a punishment with regard to trespassing, that is in accordance with the gravity of the evidence before them. If it is illegal trespassing, a heavy punishment must be imposed if the evidence justifies it.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During March 1982, the Cabinet gave its approval for the boards of directors of public corporations henceforth to take their own decisions with regard to the granting of fringe benefits and allowances to their directors and also to determine independently the post structure and remuneration of their senior executive staff. It was also decided that if any legislation existed in terms of which such determination of remuneration and allowances was vested in a Minister, as in the case of the S.A. Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation, Limited, Act, 1979, a statutory amendment should be considered in order to bring about uniform treatment of all public corporations and to eliminate additional work for the Minister involved. In the light of what I have just mentioned, and also because of the balanced and responsible recommendations and conduct of the corporations in this connection in the past, it has been decided to introduce the appropriate amendments to sections 7 and 11 of Iscor legislation.

†Furthermore, I have decided to amend sections 25, 29 and the definition of “iron and steel” in section 1 of the relevant Act. The proposed amendments will briefly bring about the following changes, namely:

1. (a) Clause 1 amends the definition of “iron and steel” so as to exclude the Minister’s approval as intended in that definition. This amendment was found necessary in order to lighten an unnecessary administrative burden on the Minister as in the case with the amendment of section 29.
2. (b) Clause 4 amends section 25 of the Act which provides that the board shall keep a register in respect of debentures or stock which are issued. While a register is being kept in respect of locally registered stock, difficulties are being experienced to keep a register in respect of bearer stock due to their nature. These bearer stock are also transferable without the need to register such a transfer. Clause 4 therefore makes provision to exclude bearer stock from the provisions of section 25.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that we will not be able to support the Bill in its entirety. We will be putting an amendment later, but before doing so, let me say that we have no objection to the fact that it would no longer be compulsory to register bearer stock, nor have we any objection to the definition of iron and steel. I move, as an amendment—

As far as we are concerned, this is a matter of principle. Iscor is a massive undertaking in which all South Africans are shareholders. These people cannot have access to the board and its executives and they have therefore appointed someone as their representive—the hon. the Minister. The fact that the hon. the Minister has a direct responsibility for Iscor, does not mean that he has to run it and thank heavens for that. In management there is a balance between responsibility and accountability. The fact that the hon. the Minister is accountable to this House for the performance of Iscor, does not mean that he is inhibited in any way from placing the responsibility, for carrying out that task squarely on the chairman and the board of that organization. Delegation is not abdication. We have had too many examples of hon. Ministers ducking their responsibility when something goes wrong and immediately the Departments of Co-operation and Development, Community Development and Defence come to mind. Consequently, we believe that the hon. the Minister has a very direct responsibility for the terms and conditions under which directors hold office. He is the shareholders’ representative and they want to hold him accountable for the profit control of an undertaking which, at the moment, has R3 700 million employed in capital. You will not solve the problem by adding the new subsection (3) to section 7 of the principal Act. The new subsection (3) reads—

This does not miraculously give a para-State organization the advantages possessed by private enterprise. Private undertakings have boards and a chief executive who is responsible to the chairman and the board of directors and they too, in turn, have their responsibility to a lot of shareholders who are anxiously clamouring for dividends and a return on their money. This organization, one must remember, is also in a lot of trouble. It made R22 million last year on a capital of R3 700 million. If it were to make 10%, which would be quite unacceptable, it would make R370 million in a year. It appears that this organization is run conservatively at this stage, but one need not have a long memory to recall the injudicious empire building and foolish diversification that Iscor was involved in not so long ago. The building, as an Iscor operation, of the Sishen-Saldanha railway is an example of that in defiance of the S.A. Transport Services who wished to do that themselves. As hon. members know, they have been forced to take it over subsequently. Iscor is tightening its belt and improving its productivity, but its own forecasts are highly pessimistic at this stage. We do not want to reduce the Minister’s accountability in any way at all in these circumstances. In addition to the Minister having responsibility for the terms and conditions under which the directors hold office he should, firstly, approve the appointment of any acting managing director, and, secondly, he must also consent to the appointment and remuneration of the auditors.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to support the amending Bill at present before this House. I do not agree with the arguments raised by the hon. member for Walmer on behalf of the official Opposition. I admit that it is a “matter of principle” and that all South Africans are in fact share-holders in this company. However, I cannot agree with the hon. member’s argument that to a certain extent this amounts to the fact that the hon. the Minister is trying to shirk his duty to South Africa’s economy. Iscor is, and will remain, an integral part of our economy. I shudder when I think of the day South Africa has to do without the giant Iscor. We have to be practical. We have to realize that Iscor is a giant undertaking and that a board of directors at the helm of such an undertaking has to function properly and soundly.

Perhaps it is inappropriate to say this in this debate, but in passing I want to tell the hon. the Member for Walmer that one hears many accusations outside, particularly from organized industry, that the present board of directors of Iscor is nothing but a rubber stamp. People are saying this. I believe that through this legislation the hon. the Minister will be able to ensure a more effective management by giving these people more authority and making the organization more streamlined. The hon. member for Walmer also shot down his own argument in connection with clause 2 of the Bill. I want to refer him in particular to the following section of the clause—

This is the crux of the matter. I also believe that the offical Opposition should take a look at what was said in this House in 1979 when the present Act was being discussed, when the then Minister of Economic Affairs inter alia spelled out Iscors’ position and the choices it had. I am quoting what he said (Hansard, Vol. 81, col. 7612)—

The Bill now before this House gives effect to this undertaking given by the then Minister of Economic Affairs. Why should we consider any discussion on Iscor as a serious matter? Time does not allow me to go into this detail, but I believe that the hon. member for Walmer read the 1982 annual report of the chairman of Iscor. There are three paragraphs one should take cognizance of when one discusses Iscor, and I am quoting (page 4)—

It goes on to say—

The following excerpt is very important (page 6)—

In this Bill we are giving effect to the wish and desire of the Chairman of Iscor, and I believe this House would be irresponsible not to adopt a positive approach to this Bill.

It gives me pleasure to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, there is far more to this Bill than meets the eye when one first reads through it and does so superficially. I am extremely sorry that we are not being given more information in this connection. It goes without saying that a very minor change in an Act of this kind may have a major effect. I am in total agreement with the hon. member for Walmer that an hon. Minister’s accountability cannot be excluded as far as a corporation like this is concerned. One cannot do so, because the ordinary taxpayer—who is in actual fact a shareholder—has no other say in this company. It seems as if there are contradictions in connection with this legislation. As the hon. member mentioned a short while ago, the words “with the concurrence of the Minister and the Minister of Finance”, are to be deleted, and the following words are to be added—

I do not understand why one set of words is being deleted and another set added. The hon. the Minister will have to explain to us whether this has anything to do with the possible sale of some of Iscor’s shares. It seems to me as if there is a plan to sell some of Iscor’s shares. I have to make these statements because I do not have any other information and I could not obtain any other information when I made inquiries. It seems to me as if we intend to sell some of Iscor’s share capital in the near future. In my opinion it is therefore essential that the hon. the Minister should have a full say and that we should have an opportunity to know exactly what is going on in that company. Why is a set-up which has been in operation for between 30 and 40 years being changed although we have frequently asked the Government if it would not be better also to make the auditor’s reports available to us so that we would have a say?

The annual reports are published.

The hon. the Minister says they are published. That says a great deal. The results of races which have been run are published, but one cannot win any money on those races because they have already been run.

Like all companies they are also subject to the Companies Act.

There is nothing one can do about it. That is why I want the hon. the Minister to remain accountable and that he must come here and account for the report after its publication.

What is the position of the managing director?

The Minister has to remain accountable to this House.

You did not prepare anything.

The hon. member says I did not prepare anything. I want to tell him that a person needs a certain I.Q. to know what people are talking about and to think about these things. I cannot blame the hon. member for his low I.Q. He can go ahead and make allegations, but I am really not going to take any notice of them. [Interjections.] I want to ask him whether he is going to discuss the Bill. If so, he must just tell me why the introduction and the deletion of certain words are being contrasted in this way.

I shall reply to that.

It is stated here that various corporations will now get together and after deliberation they will determine the salaries of their directors and other employees. How has this been done for the past 30 years? Why has it been ratified by the Minister of Finance for the past 30 years? Why is it to be changed now? I want to ask the hon. the Minister with an open mind: Is there a plan to make available some of Iscor’s share capital to other companies or the public? If that is the case, I can understand it.

Will you buy shares?

The hon. member for Overvaal asks whether I shall buy shares. Does he want to suggest that it is so poor…

I am merely asking.

The hon. member should not ask such nonsensical questions. [Interjections.] The hon. member has no right to sell things or even to make suggestions in this connection. [Interjections.] What is important here is that we have to have information as to exactly what the proposal in this Bill involves.

I still cannot understand why bearer stock is not recorded in a register. Surely one keeps a register of bearer stock. I want to ask the hon. member for Kimberley North whether he knows what bearer stock is. [Interjections.] The point is that one has to keep a register of bearer stock. It is no use telling me that I can give Daan van der Merwe a bearer stock that he can give it to Mr. Widman, that Mr. Widman can give it to Mr. Pen Kotze, etc. The fact remains that the register is one of the most important instruments in the entire auditing process. It is important to know who has the bearer stock. Do we want to conceal who originally purchased it? I am merely asking. What so called administration is there then? Why cannot it be stated in the register that Venter purchased the bearer stock or that Anglo or someone else is holding it? No, Sir, we require more information and we want the Minister to retain his accountability in this case. When one looks at these amendments, these ostensibly minor amendments, one can only think that something is being concealed here. We in this House shall not have an opportunity to go through these audited returns so that they can be of any value to us. Clause 5 provides—

“With the consent of the Minister” is being deleted. Why?

I shall explain why in a moment.

I cannot understand it. If hon. members read through what is said in their agenda, and take a look at a matter such as Viskor, they will understand why I am objecting. Study the situation of Viskor. Then hon. members will understand why I have these objections.

We cannot vote for this Bill until the hon. the Minister has given us a proper explanation. We should like to know. We hear that on 3 March there were discussions with companies to obtain capital in the form of shares for these companies. We do not know if this is true. There is nowhere else we can go for information except this House. We should therefore like to know from the hon. the Minister if there is a plan to make Iscor a part of the free enterprise so that there can be an influx of capital or whether there are no such plans at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to my old neighbour in Acacia Park and what he had to say about this Bill. He asked the hon. the Minister so many questions that I could only infer that he had not asked the questions at some other place where he could in fact have asked questions. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon. member that knowledge is the privilege of students. Insight is the privilege of experts. The hon. member should ask the hon. member for Rissik. It is true. Insight is the privilege of the experts. When one examines this measure, I want to tell the hon. member that it is fully in line with the Government’s view of the economy as a whole. In terms of this measure, certain powers vested in the Minister are being removed and conferred upon the board of directors of Iscor. In future they will be able to take certain decisions concerning salaries themselves. If the hon. member for Langlaagte would only think back for a moment, he would recall that we passed legislation in this House last year with regard to the Public Service, too, providing for greater departmental self-administration. The aim of the NP is to take the governing out of government. The hon. member must listen carefully now. The aim and purpose of the NP is to take the governing out of government. We want less and less government and more and more freedom, because this is the most effective basis on which this country of ours can best utilize all its resources—raw materials, manpower, initiative and money. This is the intention with this Bill as far as Iscor is concerned. It was Jefferson who said: “The least government is the best government.” One can translate this directly into Afrikaans by saying: “Die minste regering is die beste regering.” The provision in this Bill in terms of which the management of Iscor is given a greater discretion in respect of salaries, instead of everything having to be submitted to the Minister, is an improvement. In the old days, the position was that the IDC got the people from all the corporations together because they had submitted certain proposals, proposals which were subsequently submitted by the Government, and I think this was wrong. I think that what we envisage here is better. To say with regard to these bearer documents which in actual fact are simply cash cheques, that we are now going to lose financial control …

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member for Innesdal know of any public company where the board of directors establishes its own conditions of employment without those having to be approved on an annual basis by the shareholders?

That is being provided for in the Bill.

When Iscor came into being, Mr. Speaker, things were done in a certain way. That means we have to deal now with certain historic realities. It is, however, our aim and our view as Government to deregulate as far as possible. That is exactly what we are doing by way of this measure. Contrary to what the hon. member for Walmer intimated, there is no question whatsoever of a lack of control, specifically in respect of the funds. All the books of Iscor and of all other public corporations are audited. There is nothing in this Bill which changes that position in any way whatsoever. Therefore I cannot really understand the problem of the hon. member for Walmer. I also believe the hon. the Minister will explain later to the hon. member what the position really is. What is of importance, however, is that when we deal with an institution such as Iscor within the general and broader framework of the Government’s economic policy—and I should like to state that clearly—I am very much in favour of what is being initiated by the measure before the House now.

*The hon. member for Langlaagte wanted to know whether there were certain facets of Iscor that were being done away with. The previous Minister of Economic Affairs said in this House that all the aspects which had nothing to do with the basic functions of Iscor should go to the private sector.

When I want to place a question in this regard on the Question Paper, however, it is turned down. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte cannot possibly plead ignorance with regard to these matters. He sat with us in caucus meetings where these matters were discussed and where it was said that the activities of Iscor which had nothing to do with its basic functions should be sold. After all, the basic function of Iscor is the manufacture of steel.

That is not so. I only agreed with you about apartheid, and about nothing else. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Langlaagte knows just as well as I do that the one thing which has always worried the Government is the fact that Iscor, like other public corporations, has gradually become involved in certain activities which have nothing to do with its basic function. Those things are precisely what we want to get rid of. What the Government wishes to do with an organization such as Iscor is to take measures to enable the good management of Iscor, and its thousands of dedicated and loyal employees, to make the best possible use of their initiative and their talents. When we look at Pretoria, for example—and I speak as an inhabitant of Pretoria, where thousands of Iscor employees live—or at Newcastle, or even at Iscor projects at Ellisras, we should realize that Iscor has made an enormous contribution to the South African economy. The socio-economic benefits which the activities of Iscor have brought about for the economy as a whole should be recognized by everyone in this House. We should think, for example, of the thousands of engineers who have been trained in the workshops of Iscor, of the many thousands of artisans who have received their training through Iscor, of the absolutely positive work done by those people, to realize that the way in which the hon. the Minister approaches Iscor, the way in which, as the responsible Minister, he reposes his trust in the management of Iscor, can only serve to encourage them to make the best possible use of the means available to them. Those means are indeed the basic resources, the raw materials, the manpower, the initiative, etc. These considerations, and activities of this nature, I believe, bring us right back to the NP’s economic approach, namely that we want to generate and not only to consume.

Economically speaking, as in all other spheres, the NP—and this is reflected in this legislation—is a party and a Government of thinkers and doers.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. the Member for Innesdal on a number of points but I also disagree with him on quite a number of others. I agree with the hon. member that Iscor has a very proud and enviable history in the development of our South African economy, both in peacetime and in war. I do not think that anybody would criticize its history overall. On the other hand, however, people do make mistakes and I believe that in the past Iscor has also made mistakes. One can think, for instance, of the time mentioned by the hon. member for Walmer when Iscor tried to expand into a huge empire and found themselves in business activities which they should have stayed out of. At a later stage they started disinvesting in those subsidiaries of theirs because they realized they had made a mistake.

The hon. member also raised the question of the Sishen-Saldanha line, a railway line which up to this date has not made a single cent profit. It has not paid off a single cent of its nearly R600 million in capital. In fact, it has run up an accumulated loss of something like R65 million. Because of this, the SATS have to carry its financial burden.

The hon. member suggested that we should support these measures because they include a degree of deregulation of Iscor’s management. [Interjections.] Whilst I am very pleased to note that the hon. the Minister is thinking along the lines of deregulation, I wish to put it to him that he is deregulating in the wrong place. It is the private sector that wants to get the Government off its back. That is where the hon. the Minister should be doing more deregulating and not in relation to a State-owned corporation.

The hon. member for Innesdal, when comparing the effects of these measures with conditions in the Public Service, has told us that the Public Service today has a greater initiative and greater discretionary powers when it comes to the employment of its labour and staff. That is quite correct and it is a good thing. However, the difference between Iscor and the Public Service is that in the case of the Public Service the budget of the Public Service has to be submitted to this hon. House for approval. We then also have the Auditor-General who audits those accounts and submits his report to this House which is then considered by the Select Committee on Public Accounts where we, as the representatives of the people, can go through those reports with a fine-tooth comb as we do every year. Therefore, I believe that the hon. member was barking up the wrong tree.

A number of hon. members have said that this is a matter of principle and, as far as the NRP is concerned, we regard it to be a matter of fundamental principle. We say that whenever public money is involved, this House is responsible, and the hon. the Minister, who is the representative of this House, is responsible for the good administration of that business and is also accountable for the actions of the corporation or whatever it happens to be. In this Bill we have a diminution of the hon. the Minister’s responsibilities and accountability. For that reason, as we have done many times in the past in respect of measures of a similar nature, we are going to vote against this Bill. As has already been said by hon. members of the Opposition, we believe that the shareholders should decide on the remuneration, allowances and so forth of the directors of a company. For this reason we totally reject clause 7. We believe that the proviso cannot be relied upon; in fact, it is a waste of time and therefore we reject it.

The other clause about which we are very concerned, is clause 5 in terms of which section 29(2) of the principal Act will now read as follows—

The words that are being deleted here are “with the consent of the Minister”. In any company shareholders are asked to approve the appointment of auditors and what we are being asked to do here, is to deny the shareholders of Iscor, who are the people of South Africa, the right to approve through their delegated representative, the hon. the Minister, the appointment of the auditors.

It is for these reasons, on matters of basic principle, that we shall be voting against this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. members of the Opposition are trying to read far too much into the legislation. I think the hon. member for Walmer tried to give such a wide interpretation to it that he even moved an amendment.

It is purely and simply concerned with the transfer of administrative arrangements to the management, the board of directors of Iscor. This does not mean that the responsibility of the Minister and therefore the responsibility of the State and of Parliament is being watered down in any way. It does not detract from the responsibility with regard to the particular matters that are being dealt with in this matter. I shall come back to this in explaining the matter to the hon. member for Langlaagte.

†The hon. member for Walmer referred to the difficulties which Iscor is experiencing at the moment. It is true that Iscor is experiencing difficulties, but that is not because of the management of Iscor; it is because of the international glut in steel—overproduction, overcapacity is the order of the day. In most countries of the world, in Europe and America, all major steel companies are experiencing difficulties nowadays.

I agree.

In spite of the difficulties which we are experiencing with our exports, Iscor is doing quite well. It is certainly not in a position to make profits, but it has handled the situation very, very well.

I think I ought to point out at the outset to the hon. member that Iscor has to adhere to the Companies Act just as any other company has to adhere to it. This also applies to the appointment of directors and the way in which directors can operate. They cannot operate outside the stipulations of the Companies Act. Therefore Iscor’s statements must be published like those of any other company.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. I am surprised at the hon. the Minister’s …

Order! The hon. member may only ask a question; he cannot make another speech.

Sir, I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether Iscor is not subject only to the Act which actually brought it into being and not to the Companies Act as well.

Iscor was brought into being by legislation, but to the best of my knowledge, as a registered company, Iscor is also subject to the Companies Act.

No.

Iscor must publish its audited statements every year in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act. We are concerned here with a provision in the legislation to the effect that any change to the conditions of remuneration of directors must be approved by the Minister. I may mention an example: If the entertainment allowance of the managing director has to be changed, this must at present be approved by the Minister. That is why it is being provided in clause 2 that the directors may take their own decisions with regard to the remuneration of directors, subject to certain conditions as laid down in the clause—

†We can therefore decide on remuneration, for instance, but the directors themselves can decide as to the details regarding the managing director.

*This is the procedure followed in all public corporations, because all other public corporations function in precisely the same way: The responsible Minister lays down certain guidelines as far as salaries or remuneration of directors are concerned, but within those guidelines it is left to the directors themselves to decide about the exact remuneration of managing directors and the directors themselves.

As pointed out by the hon. member for Innesdal perhaps it was the hon. member for Overvaal—the restriction to which the board of directors is subject are made quite clear in clause 2, in terms of which the Minister may impose a condition. So the hon. member for Walmer is not correct in alleging that the Minister is abdicating his responsibility; we are concerned here with a line function. No Minister and no department should be involved in the line functions of a corporation. They should not be involved in decisions affecting managerial aspects. We are not dealing here with responsibility to Parliament; we are dealing with a managerial function for which the Minister is still responsible to Parliament in so far as the State owns the shares of Iscor.

The hon. member for Langlaagte asked a question, and I should like to answer it. He asked how we could remove the words “with the concurrence of the Minister and the Minister of Finance” and then add “subject to the provisions laid down by the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism”. This is to provide for the management to exercise a certain power without exceeding the limits or guidelines which the Minister may lay down. The present practice is that any change—to come back to the example of the entertainment allowance of the managing director—must be approved by the Minister of Finance as well as the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. The direct involvement of two Ministers and two departments in managerial affairs is being removed from the Act, therefore, and replaced by a more comprehensive and wider provision in terms of which the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism may impose a condition. In the case of the entertainment allowance, for example, the Minister could stipulate that it should not exceed a certain limit, or the Minister could lay down guidelines in respect of other forms of remuneration which are at the discretion of the board of directors. Surely there is no contradiction. It is only aimed at lightening the administrative burden and at streamlining matters, thereby enabling the board of directors and the management to manage Iscor more effectively. Therefore it is a question of effective management and not of final responsibility for the profitability of Iscor or the taking of broad economic decisions. The hon. member is trying to read something more into this and he asks whether it is a form of privatisation. I do not want to enlarge on this now. We shall be able to discuss it soon under my Vote. The State has repeatedly expressed the opinion that public corporations were established only to perform functions which could not be taken over by the private sector. Iscor was established at a time when the capital required for establishing a steel corporation in South Africa was not available in the private sector. It is not the intention of the State to interfere and establish enterprises which can equally well be undertaken by the private sector. However, there is a historic reason for the involvement of the State in the iron and steel industry. The State will also enter the sphere of the private sector where there are strategic considerations. The State can also accept responsibility for the rendering of community services which cannot be rendered by the private sector. I am thinking, for example, of electricity supply, the telephone system and the transport network, services which have been undertaken by the State because they cannot be undertaken by the private sector by reason of the capital which is required.

May I ask you a question?

I shall allow the hon. member to do so presently. Therefore I want to make it clear that it remains the policy of the State to enter the sphere of the private sector only where this is essential, and it is obviously necessary, in the case of public corporation as well, to keep asking critically to what extent it is necessary for the State to maintain that involvement and to what extent public corporations are entering fields which fall outside their proper spheres of activity. The hon. member for Innesdal was correct in referring to the fact that over the years Iscor has reduced and even terminated its involvement and shareholding in a large number of companies, because it was believed that it was no longer necessary for Iscor to be involved in those companies in the performance of its functions. In this way, it will always be necessary to consider how the State can best promote free enterprise in South Africa, and not only free enterprise with greater scope for the private sector; it is also necessary that where the State does maintain an economic involvement in the economic sector, this should be done subject to the same conditions and the same principles as those under which the private sector competes. In other words, we should operate as far as possible in terms of the market forces. The State should reduce its involvement in corporations to a minimum, to accord with the degree of responsibility which it has to accept on behalf of the taxpayer whose money is tied up in the shareholding of the corporations.

As far as managerial matters are concerned, I believe that it would be in the interests of the taxpayer if the companies were allowed to operate in accordance with free market principles. Therefore the State should not unnecessarily restrict these corporations or protect them from the discipline of the market. Therefore, as the hon. member for Innesdal rightly remarked, these decisions are in line with the Government’s policy of allowing market forces to operate in the South African economy as far as possible.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur may now ask his question.

Is the hon. the Minister aware of the provision in the S.A. Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation, Limited, Act, which provides specifically that no provision of the Companies Act should apply with reference to the corporation unless the Minister has applied the provisions of that Act to the Corporation? Has he in fact applied the provisions of the Companies Act to the corporation?

In entering the sphere of the private sector by way of corporations, the State tries to act as far as possible in accordance with the principles applicable to the private sector.

That was not my question.

I am replying to the hon. member’s question. As far as I know, Iscor acts in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act.

That was not my question.

If the hon. member wants greater clarity on the matter, I regret that I cannot provide it at this stage.

It is vital.

But the Iscor legislation is there for the hon. member to examine if he wants to see to what extent Iscor is under the obligation to operate and to be administered in terms of the Act.

You said the Companies Act applied to Iscor. It does not apply.

I shall accept it if the hon. member says so. However, I should like to clarify the matter, and I shall be able to let the hon. member have a proper reply in due course.

I also want to refer to the question by the hon. member for Langlaagte about bearer stock. The fact is that bearer stock, like any debenture not made out to a person, can be negotiated without being recorded in the register. Ordinary stock made out to a person—debentures—must be registered when they are negotiated. However, bearer stock are simply debentures which are not linked to a person and which can therefore be freely negotiated.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how a record is kept of the number of bearer stocks.

The fact is that the debenture has to be redeemed sooner or later. It is a specific amount which is recorded as a debt and which can be claimed. In this way, paper is made available so that Iscor can also meet its loan obligations. If it does so by means of ordinary stock, it can do so by means of bearer stock as well.

All I want to know is how a record is kept of the stock.

But the corporation makes a limited number of stocks available, and at a certain date, when their currency has expired, whether they be linked to a person or whether they be bearer stock, those stocks fall due and must then be redeemed. To the corporation itself it is not of the utmost importance to ascertain who owns those debentures. [Interjections.]

But how much is outstanding then?

But the outstanding amount is not determined by the register alone. The amount is determined by the number of stocks that are issued and what the currency of the stock is. Then the corporation knows that when the currency of specific stock expires, those debentures have to be redeemed. If they do not all come back then, it is simply because there is an outstanding portion which has not been claimed.

Like bonus bonds.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister the following question: If Iscor were to sell a proportion of its shares to the private sector …

These are not shares.

No, but if it were to sell a proportion of its shares as part of a process, and the terms and conditions of employment of the board did not compulsorily have to be approved by those shareholders at an annual general meeting every year, would the hon. the Minister be satisfied with the situation? If he would not be satisfied with such a situation, why is he satisfied with the situation evidenced in this Bill?

I must say, with all due respect, that I do not quite understand the hon. member’s question. We are not concerned here with the relationship between Iscor and its employees. I do not understand the hon. member’s question.

If Iscor were to sell a proportion of its shares to the private sector and then did not have to have the terms and conditions of employment of its board members approved, on a compulsory basis, by its shareholders at an annual general meeting, would he be satisfied with that situation?

But Iscor would not be able to sell or dispose of any of its shares without the consent of its board of directors and without complying with the conditions contained in the legislation, and this implies the involvement of the Minister, of course. Surely this has got nothing to do with the sale of shares. Nor has it got anything to do with the privatization of Iscor. The legislation provides that the board of directors will be able to take its own decisions with regard to administrative matters affecting the determination of the remuneration of directors. Surely this is clearly laid down in the legislation. It concerns the remuneration, the conditions of employment, of the directors …

But that was not my question.

If the board of directors were to take decisions in connection with the shareholding in Iscor, the hon. member asks …

Let me repeat my question. If Iscor were to sell a proportion of its shares to the private sector—something that is indeed possible—would the hon. the Minister be happy with a situation in which the remuneration and terms of employment of the directors of Iscor did not have to be reviewed and approved annually, on a compulsory basis, by its shareholders at an annual general meeting, because the hon. the Minister stands in the same position relative to Iscor as the shareholders do in such circumstances?

Even with the enactment of this piece of legislation, this amending Bill, the remuneration would still have to be approved by an annual meeting. This does not give the board a blank cheque to change the terms of remuneration of its members without annually reporting that fact in their statements.

*This is only to prevent Ministers from having to give their permission from time to time for minor matters—often administrative matters—concerning the remuneration of the managing director or of directors. The same applies to all other corporations. The relevant information is embodied in the annual statements in the same way. Therefore it is reflected in the audited annual statements. I cannot understand why hon. members want to read so much into it. [Interjections.] The State appoints the directors, for the periods it deems fit, to represent the interests of the State on the board. What hon. members are trying to do here today is to question the competence of those directors who are appointed by the Government to represent the interests of the shareholders on that board. [Interjections.] But of course!

The rights of Parliament.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to the question of deregulation. As regards deregulation, he is happy to see responsibility being given to directors in the private sector, but Iscor is also in the private sector. It is part of the private sector in terms of the competition in the private sector. The State remains shareholders and executes its responsibility, in the first instance in the appointment of directors at annual meetings. In that way it looks after the interests of the shareholders, but just as we would grant directors and companies in the private sector the right to operate according to the market-related economy, we would like to give State corporations the same opportunity, but, again, under the provisions laid down by the Minister. There is therefore no question of the Minister trying to rid himself of his responsibility or accountability. That he cannot do. It is really only to enable the various boards to run their companies in a modified and a modern way in accordance with what is taking place in the marketplace.

The same applies to the appointment of the auditors. The information is published annually in their statements. At the annual meeting the Minister, through his appointees, can decide to appoint new auditors for the next year. The matter is laid before the shareholders and the Minister appoints directors—usually the existing directors, but he could appoint anyone else as well—to represent the State at such a meeting where the statements are then tabled and the question of the auditors to be appointed for the next year is discussed just as at any other general public meeting.

That is all I have to say at this stage. I really think the hon. members are trying to read far too much into this Bill. It is aimed at streamlining the Act. It gives the management, the directors and the board of Iscor the opportunity to run the company in an effective and efficient way and it does not take any of the State’s responsibility away from it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. We know that this hon. Minister is efficient and that every year he will look at the details of all State corporations’ accounts to establish exactly what the directors are earning. However, in the event of it suddenly being found that the directors of Iscor have remunerated themselves far in excess of what the public think they should receive, will the hon. the Minister accept accountability in the light of the amendment we have before us?

Yes.

How?

I most certainly will be accountable on that score. That is why clause 2 provides that the Minister …

“…may”.

Yes, he “may”, but he certainly will do so in executing his responsibilities. It has been the tradition—the hon. member for Walmer also referred to this—that State corporations annually arrange a meeting to decide on salary increases and levels of remuneration. Certainly, it is possible for a State corporation or a board to decide that it would like two or three of its directors to take a special responsibility upon themselves on behalf of the board to look into a certain matter and that those directors should receive special remuneration. The fact is, however, that at the moment everything must be approved by the two Ministries. This is hampering these boards in their efforts to execute their responsibilities in an efficient manner. The Minister remains responsible. In connection with the remuneration of the managing director guidelines are laid down, and they are changed from time to time. My answer to the hon. member is therefore: Yes, in terms of the salaries and remuneration not only of the directors, but also of the managing director, the Minister has a responsibility.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The seventeen clauses in the Bill with the exception of a few of them, are not of a drastic nature, and are more concerned with the technical side of the Liquor Act. Hon. members will recall that in 1980 the Government announced that members of the Black national groups would be permitted, within the framework of the Liquor Act, to enter the liquor industry within their own residential areas. It was found that the assessing and processing of the applications for special authorizations granted in respect of premises in this area often took longer to consider and finalize than applications for other liquor licences.

These delays were caused largely by the fact that the Act prescribed that every application had first to be considered by the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the Minister of Internal Affairs respectively, depending on the application, after the Liquor Board had recommended an application and before it had been finally agreed to. The Ministers in question agreed that the procedure could be simplified. Clause 1 is aimed at making the procedure relating to applications for special authorizations, equivalent to the procedure that applies in regard to all other applications for liquor licences. In future a uniform procedure will apply to all applications.

Clause 2 inserts a power of delegation into the Act. It will in future be possible to delegate the authorization to permit a wine farmer to establish on his premises a tasting room in which wine can be tasted by bona fide visitors. The provision in question is being inserted in the Act in line with other similar provisions and is aimed at facilitating the administration of the Liquor Act.

The policy of the Government is to afford more Black people the opportunity, as rapidly as possible, to enter the liquor industry in their areas, and to try to establish adequate legal on-consumption outlets. However, the Liquor Act prohibits the issue of a liquor licence or special authorization to any person who has been convicted of certain offences. The distribution and sale of liquor in Black residential areas has developed in a way that has made stringent control imperative. Many people in the liquor trade have been guilty of offences of a more or less serious nature. There are competent people who, due to this provision, will not be able to enter the legal liquor trade unless the Act is adjusted to give the authority in question a discretion to determine whether a person is competent to hold a licence or not.

Clause 3 provides that the appropriate authority may, in considering an application, find that previous convictions are not of such a nature as to imply that the applicant is deemed unsuitable to hold a licence.

The Government is not in favour of a free system of licensing. Liquor is a product the abuse of which can lead to serious social problems. The Government has a duty to the public and does not intend sacrificing its direct function of control in any way. However, the existing quota provision in terms of section 34 of the Liquor Act is no longer in line with reality as far as the allocation of licences is concerned. The computerized registration of voters no longer provides the information required by section 34. Clause 4 is aimed at replacing section 34. Applications will still be assessed in accordance with strict standards, with the aim of complying with the demands of the public interest.

The proposed statutory amendments also make it possible to make provision for the liquor requirements of remote mining communities. It also provides that as at present, liquor store licences cannot be granted in respect of premises in rural areas.

†Clause 5 amends the Act to give a discretion to the competent authority to determine that more than one licensed business may in appropriate cases, be conducted under one roof. Hon. members will recall that the Act prohibits the granting of a liquor licence in respect of two or more premises under the same roof. An amendment is warranted to keep abreast of developments in modern hypermarkets and shopping complexes.

The amendment effected by clause 6 is of technical nature in order to clarify the meaning of the relevant provision beyond any doubt. Not all magistrates are appointed as receivers of revenue. Since the Act requires all payments in terms of the Act to be made to receivers of revenue, clause 6 intends to clarify the position.

The Act provides that a licence becomes invalid if the fees prescribed in respect of the issue, transfer or removal of any licence are not paid within a certain time. Clause 7 relates to the amendment brought about by clause 10 which makes provision that an off-sales privilege held by the holder of a hotel liquor licence may be removed from one premises to another in the same manner as in respect of other classes of liquor licences under section 46 of the Act. An authority to transfer such privilege will in terms of clause 7 lapse and become null and void if the prescribed fees in respect of the removal are not paid within 60 days from the date of issue thereof.

A similar technical amendment is effected to section 42 of the Act by clause 8 so that the fees payable in respect of the aforesaid authorities could be calculated in the same manner as calculations in respect of licences issued after 31 January. This clause further provides for the deletion of the provision which prescribes the payment of an additional fee or impost in respect of the issue of new liquor store licences in certain proclaimed areas. The undesirable speculation in such licences is satisfactorily regulated by section 128A of the Act which prohibits the alienation of liquor store licences without the consent of the Minister within a period of five years as from the date on which such licence was granted. The retention therewith of a parallel system which provides for an impost is therefore obsolete.

The amendment affected by clause 9 is also intended to clarify the present legal position by explicitly providing that subsequent to the condonation of a late payment of licensing fees, any additional fees imposed together with the licensing fees should be paid within 60 days. At the moment it is by law not possible to transfer a wine farmer’s authority or any authority to sell liquor for consumption off the licensed premises from one premise to another as is the case with liquor licences. Authorities of this nature are closely related or similar to liquor licences and a distinction should not be drawn in view thereof that these authorities function on the same principle.

Clause 10 introduces the principle of transfer in respect of authorities and makes the Act less complicated.

Clause 11 is intended to effect a change to prevent the abuse of off-sales privileges in the event of a related accommodation establishment being damaged beyond public use and an accompanying failure to restore or repair the establishment to acceptable standards.

*The amendment effected by clause 12 is aimed at ensuring that the holders of wine and beer licences may in future sell liquor on any day, including a closed day, during the hours that have been authorized outside 12h00 to 14h30 and 18h00 to 23h30.

The statutory amendment effected by way of clause 13 extends the existing prohibition of the consumption of liquor on private premises without the consent of the owner or lawful occupier, to all persons. The existing selectiveness of the provision is thereby removed.

There are several wine collectors in the Republic who have built up valuable collections of wine over the years. However, in terms of the provisions of the Liquor Act, this is an asset which cannot be realized. Circumstances have developed which may justify granting permission to collectors to offer their collections or part thereof for sale. Clause 14 provides that the Minister or a person acting under his directions may grant such authorization to collectors in specific circumstances.

It has also been noted that the approximately 19 registered private airlines that undertake scheduled domestic flights cannot lawfully sell liquor to their passengers during flights. Clause 14 eliminates this deficiency.

The distilling of liquor is a tradition that is dying out. However, there are museums of cultural history where distilling is still done for educational purposes. Representations have been received for permission to be granted for the distilled product to be sold to visitors. Clause 14 makes provision for this as well.

Clause 15 improves the English text with regard to the Afrikaans term “Geloftedag”, whereas clause 16 makes provision for the short title.

Mr. Speaker, except in one respect, that is the change in the quota system in respect of the determination of bottle-store licences, the Bill before the House does primarily a necessary tidying-up job. The removal of all reference to race from the Act is certainly welcomed by this side of the House. The amendment of section 25(l)(b) to provide more discretion for the competent authority when judging the suitability of an applicant with a previous conviction, is obviously reasonable.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before the suspension of business I was busy with some of the clauses of the Bill. The amendments to provide for authorities issued in terms of sections 87(l)(a) and 111(1) are consequential. Clause 12 does not concern us. The extension of time in which wine and malt liquor licenceholders may serve and sell liquor is necessary. Clause 14 contains provisions to allow the proper disposal of wine from a bona fide collector’s collection or wine from a deceased estate. These provisions cater for those situations adequately. We have no problem with subsections (b), (c), (d) and (e) of clause 14.

This brings me back to clause 4 which seeks the substitution of the existing section 34. The old quota system where bottle store licences were granted on a ratio of one bottle store licence to 2 000 registered voters is obviously no longer sensible since there are now so many people of other races who are not registered voters at all but are using these bottle stores freely. It is therefore necessary that some other system must be found.

What is now happening should illustrate very clearly to hon. members on that side of the House how important it is for a Government to maintain and cherish its credibility. The provisions of the new section 34 would appear the best interim arrangement at least until somebody can think of a better arrangement. It removes completely the outdated quota system and replaces it with a system which relies on the objectivity of the board or the Minister as is stated in the explanatory memorandum. He will consider “die vereistes van die openbare belang”.

It is all very well, but can we trust them to do so? We should like to believe that that would be the case, but in 1979 the Government presided at the restructuring of the liquor industry into a highly monopolistic organization. While it was doing so, it was bringing into being the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act to establish a Competition Board. Can one imagine anything more cynical? At one move the Government rescued Mr. Anton Rupert’s group from disastrous investment in Intercontinental Breweries, got South African Breweries out of the wine and spirits business or the highly competitive position that it was creating in that business at any rate …

What has that to do with the Bill?

Well, we are being asked to give carte blanche to the hon. the Minister to issue liquor licences without the criteria which we had before. I cannot imagine anything more specific and more related to the Bill.

In this organization Rembrandt/KWV has a 60% interest and S.A. Breweries a 30% interest. In a brilliant piece of economic political gerrymandering the Government entrenched two NP pressure groups in a position to great economic power, and all at no cost to anybody, except the consumer, the person whom we in this House are supposed to look after. How do we know that that situation is not going to continue? Despite the fact that the output of wine and spirit has been rising more rapidly than demand, the price increases. Last night I listened to the hon. the Prime Minister calling for the promotion of competition in the economic field; can one imagine it against a background like this? I suppose we must feel relieved that he is not considering economic reform in the manner he is considering constitutional reform.

The Competition Board courageously recommended that the cosy liquor industry arrangement be dismantled. It says that it is difficult to reconcile the Government’s declared policy of free enterprise with the position where the KWV representing producers and with the statutory power to control prices and supply should integrate vertically so that it can also process and market the product. After sitting on the proposals of the Competition Board for over a year, the Government has decided to …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is now talking about the Competitions Board. With all respect, this has nothing to do with the amendment before the House at the moment.

I am prepared to allow a certain amount of latitude in the Second Reading. The hon. member may proceed.

After sitting on the Competition Board’s proposals for a year, the Government has decided to brazen out the situation. One has to ask oneself if this is the type of clean administration we were promised. In the Bill before us we have a situation in which there are no checks and balances. The Minister and the board can decide on the issuing of licences in a way over which we have no direct control and to which we can relate no specific conditions.

We are a little bit concerned about this whole question, of how far we can trust a situation such as this. We have had too much double talk. Double talk is becoming synonymous with Nat talk throughout the country, and this is a dangerous thing from all points of view.

The proposed new section 34 could be used to parcel out more bottle-store licences to friends of the NP. The CWD has been permitted 300 bottle-stores, Union Wine can buy 103, Gilbey’s can retain its 70, but S.A. Breweries must sell its bottle-stores. This Government is recklessly squandering two most precious assets for the short term, and does it for dubious benefit. These two assets are our credibility and our self-respect. It is a foolish and reprehensible policy. There are times when one finds oneself in a vehicle driven by a driver in whom one has no confidence whatsoever. One has no confidence in his qualifications, but one just has to go along as well. We find ourselves in that position today. Mr. Speaker, we will not be voting against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my speech I shall return to and deal with some of the matters which have been raised by the hon. member for Walmer.

*I really think it is a pity that the hon. member saw fit to speak about competition in this debate, which concerns a Bill which is largely of a technical nature. He will have the opportunity to discuss it later this afternoon when the legislation in question comes before this House. He will also have the opportunity to refer to it during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote. I also greatly regret the fact that he referred to certain groups of businessmen in South Africa as NP pressure groups. I have a suspicion that he is referring to honourable groups, under the leadership of honourable people, for example Dr. Anton Rupert, who is a highly regarded businessman in South Africa and is held in high esteem by all the people of this country. I find it a great pity that he has done so. I also find it a pity that he said that the proposed new section 34 had been worded in such a way that it would be possible in terms of that section “to parcel out liquor licences to friends of the NP”. In the course of my speech I shall state very clearly why this is not so. In fact, I think the hon. member abused this opportunity to score political points. Accordingly I do not intend to devote any further attention to him.

Earlier in his speech the hon. the Minister confirmed once again that liquor was a potentially dangerous item of consumption. For that reason the Government is not in favour of the free licensing of this commodity. I think it is as well that this is so. A fine culture has developed around wine and other alcoholic liquor. Its civilized use makes a contribution to the pleasures of life, and happy are those who use it in this way, because that is how it should be used and, I believe, that is how the wine farmers want it used, too. To many, however, it has also brought misery. That wise man, Langenhoven, said that it would be better if the headache was in the cork rather than in the bottom of the bottle. I think it is as well that we should take cognizance of the fact that we should rather stay away from the bottom of the bottle.

On the other hand, there are people who feel that they need liquor to escape their circumstances. The other evening at Stellenbosch Koos Meyer quoted a Dutch saying which goes—

[Interjections.] The existing liquor legislation is a relatively complex piece of legislation, and efforts to simplify its implementation are to be welcomed. Therefore, this Bill is very welcome. Several of the provisions are of a technical nature and do not require a great deal of discussion. Accordingly I wish to confine myself to a few aspects relating to principle. In the first place, there is the aspect to which the hon. member for Walmer also referred, viz. clause 4, which makes provision for a new section 34. It abolishes the old quota system for liquor store licences, and I think it is high time for this to happen. For various reasons the quota system is obsolete. One of the reasons is one which the hon. the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech, one which relates to the system of voter registration. The second reason is that so many things have changed, whilst the quota system has remained unchanged. Perhaps it is as well that we consider a few of the things that have in fact changed.

The Coloureds have always been entitled to use liquor, but at the moment they are not parliamentary voters. However, the quota calculation was based on the number of parliamentary voters. This meant that an important category of consumers, namely the Coloureds—and here I also wish to mention the Indians—were not taken into account in the determining of quotas, and this was certainly unrealistic. I also wish to point out that it is now being evisaged to make the Coloureds and the Indians parliamentary voters again in terms of the new dispensation, although not on a common voters’ roll. Without legislation, this step in itself would have had a drastic effect on the quotas.

This brings me to the Black people. Their numbers, too, are not taken into account in determining quotas, and nevertheless they entered the so-called White consumer market years ago. As they progress in the socioeconomic sphere, their pattern of consumption and their needs change, as does their share in the market. A quota system that ignores their numbers simply will not do any longer.

Section 23 of the Liquor Act is being used to grant comprehensive liquor marketing privileges, including off-sale rights, to Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in their own areas. In this regard there is no quota restrictions. No prescriptive limiting norms play a role in that regard. Public interest is the most important test. If section 23 off-sales in specific areas are added to other off-sales and other liquor licences, the majority of areas would in any event already exceed their quotas.

There is another general argument against the a quota system, and that the criterion of public interest is in any event already the most important one in considering applications for liquor store licences. The mere fact that a quota exists in a specific area still does not mean that it is in the public interest to grant a licence there. Nor does it give the public or a member of the public a right to demand a licence. It often happens, however, that there are quotas for one or more liquor stores but that applications that are in order technically speaking, do not succeed. On the other hand, it also happens that the Liquor Board itself finds the quota determinations restrictive. For example, it happens that there is a quota for one liquor store but two applicants. Both applicants are technically sound and both have merit. It may be, too, that it is in the public interest that both applications be granted. But in such a case the legislation limits the Liquor Board and the Minister. A choice has to be made. Only one application can succeed, and I do not believe that this is in the interest of either the applicants or the public. In the past this provision may have had merit. Today it is obsolete.

We now come to the test of the public interest, about which the hon. member for Walmer was so concerned. This test is a proven test. It is not a new test. The Liquor Board, which in any event must make a recommendation to the Minister, is entrusted with it. They are already applying it, and they do so in an objective and responsible way. Since it is now being suggested that in terms of this altered legislation there is a possibility of granting liquor licences only to people who support the NP. I want to say that I was a member of the Liquor Board and I can state here today that we are dealing here with able people, well-trained people, people who perform their task thoroughly and with unimpeachable integrity. I think that the hon. member also assailed the integrity of those people who are people of character and calibre, as I have just indicated. I find it really deplorable that the hon. member should have done so.

That is scandalous.

Nor is the test of public opinion as vague, complex or fluid as hon. members may think. As I said, it is in any event a test which is already being used in assessing all applications for licences and authorizations in terms of the Act.

Moreover, critera for its implementation are often laid down in courts. For example, the functions of the Liquor Board itself were discussed as follows by Mr. Justice Watermeyer in Vanderbijlpark Health Committee and Others versus Wilson and Others—

Please note!—

Here, therefore, we already find a few guidelines. Any reasonable person capable of objective thought ought to be capable of understanding and applying this test. What it amounts to is simply that all relevant factors are taken into account and weighed up against each other. Circumstances do differ from place to place and from case to case, and therefore every case has to be considered on merits.

Perhaps I should give a few examples. It is true that it is in the public interest that liquor stores should be available to the public in sufficient numbers at convenient places, but it is not in the public interest that there should be so many retail outlets in a particular region that they cannot all make a living. Such a situation could, for example, give rise to price wars, and price wars and other incentives to buy often have the effect that liquor is virtually forced on people. Those who are least able to afford it often buy too much liquor at such times, with unpleasant and undesirable consequences for themselves, their families and the community in which they live. Let me give another example. It is usually in the public interest that there should be at least one hotel in a small town. It provides social facilities to the community in question and also accommodates the travelling public. Most of these hotels provide a neat and sound service, but the majority of them are also dependent for their survival on their off-sales. Accordingly, if an application for a liquor store at that town is made, consideration must be given to the effect the granting of such a liquor store licence may have on the future of the hotel. I shall give a further example, an obvious one. It certainly cannot be in the public interest to have a liquor store, or, still worse, something like a public bar, alongside a crèche. I could continue in this vein. The test of public interest is a comprehensive one, but as applied by the Liquor Board and by the hon. the Minister who receives recommendations from the Liquor Board, it will do justice to the liquor industry and the community at large. It is as well that an artificial, obsolete and out-of-date criterion is now being done away with.

At this stage, with regard to this specific clause, I just want to point out an interesting result of the deletion of the existing section 34 and its replacement by a new one. This is that the holder of a liquor store licence may in future have a so-called wine counter in a rural area, something which he was not entitled to in the past. I think that this is an interesting new departure. I personally will be watching with the greatest interest to see how this is implemented in practice.

I now come to what the hon. member for Walmer had to say, viz. that we shall now simply grant liquor store licences right and left, and only to our own people. I want to stress that the public must not gain the impression that liquor store licences will now be granted on an unlimited basis. The public is, in general, well provided with conventional off-sales retail outlets for liquor. Moreover, there is no space for a large number of new liquor stores. Prospective investors in the liquor industry would be sensible to give due consideration to the needs of the community and the public interest before making application. If not, they may find that they have lost their money and may end up disappointed people.

I now wish to deal briefly with clause 14, specifically the proposed new paragraph (1)(ii). Collectors of wine—wine is the only kind of liquor that is being granted this concession—may in future be granted authorization to sell their collections or part of their collections. In recent years certain people have invested enormous quantities of money in wine. I should like to know how much red wine is lying in little cellars and cupboards and homes, ready for the day when the cork is extracted and people go into ecstacies about the nose, the colour, the bouquet and other outstanding characteristics of this wonderful liquid in the bottle. Last night I phoned a friend of mine who is a wine collector, and he informed me that he had approximately 7 500 bottles of wine in his collection. He estimates their present value at approximately R60 000. He tells me that a friend of his who lives not far from him has a similar collection. He also told me that he personally knew several people in the Transvaal, each of whom had between 5 000 and 6 000 bottles. Al these wines are select wines, wines of select quality. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine that such a person will have problems if he has to move to a smaller dwelling, or even to an old-age home. After all, one does not give away wine worth R60 000. I therefore welcome this provision in the interests of our wine collectors, people who, in turn, are good allies of the wine farmer.

In conclusion, I just wish to refer briefly to clause 5. As the Act reads at present, a grocer’s wine licence may be issued to a grocers store for use in that store. However, a liquor store cannot even be operated outside a department store when, for example, there is an exit in the passage in which the pay point of the department store is situated. Hon. members who often go to hypermarkets will know what I am talking about. This prohibition is in conflict with the present-day approach of one-stop marketing. Other types of shops, such as sports shops, may have exits into such a passage. Now the relevant authority is being granted a discretion to decide whether such a modern practice will be acceptable in specific cases. This is progress, progress which takes account of modern marketing trends, and I think that it is as well that this opportunity is being created.

The Bill before us today is in general a sound, thorough and meaningful measure and I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed in principle to making liquor more widely available. We in South Africa have a unique problem, and over the years a certain pattern has developed in South Africa on the basis of which we make our liquor available. This pattern has been that the hon. the Minister has controlled the issue of liquor licences by way of very stringent control, exercised through the Liquor Board. The man of the house went to buy liquor and dealt with it as if it was a controlled product. In the home, liquor was usually locked away. In the normal course women did not enter a liquor store. In that sense, liquor was not freely available for the rest of the family. But what do we find today? We find that the Government has begun to project a looser and more liberal philosophy with regard to many matters. As far as liquor is concerned, we have reached the point at which, in my opinion, it is too freely available to children. Let us look at the country with the greatest knowledge of liquor and the biggest problem with liquor, namely France. Under a person like Mitterand we find that it is forbidden to advertise liquor on television. France has its problems.

Just go and see how many people are lying next to the Seine in an intoxicated state, waiting for the dawn of the following day. The French Government saw that its people were going under; it is for that reason that no liquor advertisements on television are allowed in France today. In South Africa television is an instrument of State and just look at the misrepresentations in respect of liquor, just like those in respect of politics. This is something that must be considered. It is a major problem.

Let us see what happens in the grocers store. The Latin American woman does not drink intoxicating liquor. For that reason alcoholism is limited more or less to the male sex, and accordingly the problem there is perhaps not as severe as in cases where women are also subject to it. Nowadays, however, the woman can enter a grocers store and buy a few bottles of light wine together with her groceries. In most instances the housewife does not buy three to four cans of cooldrink, because the cooldrink is almost more expensive than the wine. After all, in chain stores the wine is a “leader”, as the people call it. The wine is a “leader product”. [Interjections.]

You are a “cheer leader”, man. [Interjections.]

Wine must be given away almost free in the chain stores so that people can begin to drink more and more, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch says.

When did I say that?

Now we get to the point when a girl or boy of 12 or 14 years comes home in our warm climate and, on opening the refrigerator, finds that the mother did not buy cooldrink, but that instead there are two cans of wine in the refrigerator. [Interjections.] There is a box of wine. It is warm, and the wine is the only cold item in the fridge. [Interjections.] Now that child drinks a glass or two of that wine. [Interjections.] Yes, that child drinks two glasses of wine. [Interjections.]

Is that what happened to you, Barney? [Interjections.]

The hon. member wants to know whether that is what happened to me. I walk the streets of my constituency quite frequently. I must say that most of the voters in that constituency do not earn salaries which enable them to afford more than the bare essentials of life.

*However, I find that things of this nature do happen there. Parents tell me that they have to work, and when they come home they often find that their children have a problem. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Chairman, what does one find when one investigates the activities of schoolchildren? It often happens that one discovers that pupils in matric … [Interjections.] Now, why don’t you people shut up sometimes and rather listen to something which is important to the nation? [Interjections.]

*Listen to something that is important; something that is in the public interest. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that nowadays, school children have free access to liquor; mainly liquor at home in the refrigerator. Having drunk a second glass of wine, a child is certainly not cold sober any more. [Interjections.] Hon. members can investigate for themselves if they want to find out what problems are being encountered among school children in matric, for example.

Mr. Speaker, the South African woman drinks with her husband. [Interjections.] That is true, of course. The South African woman drinks with her husband. [Interjections.] She does not necessarily drink more…

You are making an absolute generalization now.

No, definitely not.

Yes, you are now simply making up your own stories.

No, Mr. Speaker, I say that not every South African woman drinks. The French woman and the Latin American woman do not drink intoxicating liquor, however. In many instances the South African woman does drink intoxicating liquor. [Interjections.] Therefore, all I am saying now is that the State has a duty to put a stop to the free availability of liquor to the extent that it is the case today. It is something that must be stopped. I say we must go back to the old days when the Liquor Board had the full say. This liberalization, this new philosophy of the Government, must be stopped. [Interjections.] Of course it must be stopped. [Interjections.]

I now want to deal with a different aspect, viz. the quota system. What argument does the Government advance as to why they cannot retain the quota system? They follow a system of 2 000 voters for every liquor store.

Yes, but they are not Coloured voters.

Male voters.

Yes, male voters. Do hon. members on the Government side wish to contend that a liquor store cannot provide sufficient quantities of liquor to 2 000 male voters? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I shall tell this House what the problem is here. No chain store has 2 000 people living in the immediate vicinity.

†Therefore they will not be entitled to the number of bottle stores which they indeed obtain, and also not to the number of liquor outlets which they have at their disposal at the moment. I think that is the reason why. What is happening now? People who have been in the trade for many years are now being adversely affected by the granting of new licences and by the introduction of new quotas. That, to my own way of thinking, is completely wrong. [Interjections.]

Your way of thinking is wrong.

Yes, but you will vote for me. [Interjections.]

*What is the position of the chain stores in our country?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the hon. member whether it is only voters who consume liquor in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for asking that. He is entitled to ask such a question. One must deal with a man on the basis of his spiritual condition. [Interjections.] No, other people can also use it. That hon. member could also use it if he was not a voter. [Interjections.] The point I want to make, is that we are so fond of speaking about the public interest. What is in the public interest of South Africa? [Interjections.] Is it the sale of more or of less liquor? The hon. the Minister did not say that liquor is something that is dangerous, but something that must be controlled. Particularly when we consider the history of the Coloured in the Western Cape I, who grew up here as a child, say that drink was a scourge for those people. For many years that was the case and I saw how families went under and how a man was eventually unable to work unless he was given liquor. I say that making liquor generally available, and the free quotas, are a monster. It must be a controlled article. I do not say that anyone who wants a drink should not be able to have it. Nor I am opposed to liquor being made available on certain domestic airlines. However, I do say that the free availability of liquor in an urban area, for example, due to increase in the quotas, is a monster, because this results in competition, competition similar to what we are having at the moment among the big chain stores. These shops sell liquor at so called cost price, but the public are not told what those shops ask in advertising rights. They can easily get R3 000 or R4 000 for that. Therefore they make their profit on that and that is why they can sell the wine cheaper. Moreover, the taxpayer has to pay for his advertisements. [Interjections.] These are important points. I think these matters should be investigated. When we deal with wines and we speak about its provision, the write-off dates and the extension of periods, then these are things I can understand. As I have already said, I am not in favour of the consumption of wine by adults being stopped. We also say that people should not smoke, but every day we have advertisements urging people to smoke. People may not smoke dagga. People may not do this or that, but as soon as it gets to the point at which the money of a group of people is in jeopardy, we throw up our hands and say no; it can be made more widely and freely available.

†The hon. member for Walmer is 150% correct when he says very clearly that in this Parliament something has happened that is completely out of the ordinary in that some people have been allowed to form the largest monopoly in the world in regard to liquor and, in fact, to hold other people to ransom in that regard. There is nothing in the trade a man can really do, when he is a small man, to force the hand of the seller. It is shocking that things of this nature can happen in a country where we are talking about free enterprise. Here we have one of the biggest cartel systems in the world!

*What is happening to us? When one discusses this matter in this House there are those who laugh at one because they do not know what it is all about and the others who want to prevent you speaking about it. It is interesting that one can never say “KWV” but they can say to you “AWB”. [Interjections.] If one says “KWV”, one is attacking the farmers. Surely that is not true. Just give them another five years and South African Breweries will be sitting with the entire liquor trade in South Africa. I have no doubt about that, because the way in which they do business has shown us that they are one step ahead of the ordinary farmer. They have more experience.

Over the course of many years restrictions have been placed by this House, by means of the Liquor Board, on the total free availability of liquor, quotas and other aspects. The hon. the Minister must note that the South African woman is a working woman—almost 60% of them work. 55% of all Blacks in the urban areas are economically active. Among the Whites, therefore, there is almost a high figure. Over the next five to ten years we shall be facing one of the biggest liquor problems in history. I ask that we give timeous attention to this. We shall have to look at what we are doing here.

I do not think it is necessary to discuss the adjustments of the legislation being effected by way of clause 2 and certain other clauses. I think that those clauses are aimed at better handling and so on. I ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot go back to the time when we had a Liquor Board.

We do have a Liquor Board.

Yes, we do have a Liquor Board but nowadays it has been totally emasculated. [Interjections.] One can have a board and clothe it with legal authority, one can give the police laws that they can never put into effect.

How are licences granted nowadays?

In other words, all it is today is a licensing board. The board is no longer a control board, because the important thing now is the free quota system.

How can there be control if there are not licences.

Of course there have to be licences; after all, I am asking for a board. I do not know whether the hon. member understands this, but I am specifically asking that the board be given more power, more muscle.

But we are giving it more muscle now.

Over the years the Liquor Board had muscle, the years when it was successful. At that time we knew exactly what the position was.

I was to point out to the hon. the Minister what the position was. When I speak about a butcher now I must please be permitted to do so; I wish to relate it to the legislation. When chain stores came up with the idea of obtaining butcher facilities it was said at the time that they were not real butchers. In terms of the legislation at the time they were unable to obtain butcher’s licences. What happened then? They became “packing institutions”. They were then able to put meat into packages and sell it there. Eventually a licence had to be obtained in any event. He may not have a liquor licence under the same roof. [Interjections.]

To what clause are you referring now?

The hon. the Minister must really not expect of me to keep him abreast of the clauses. Just go and see what licences one is entitled to have under one roof. Nowhere could one have a liquor licence together with an ordinary trading licence under the same roof. Accordingly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make the Act more effective. We need not keep liquor away from those who can use it in a controlled fashion. However, it must not be so freely available that, as the hon. the Minister said, it causes problems for our country. That is not in the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time since I have heard a more incoherent and illogical argument in this House than that of the hon. member for Langlaagte. At the outset of his speech the hon. member spoke about the consumption of wine. I wish to inform him that I grew up in a home where it was customary to have wine at table to enjoy with the meal each afternoon and each evening. It is a custom which originated with the French Huguenots who came to South Africa and was based on their religious convictions, and it has been passed down and preserved through many generations. I should like to invite the hon. member for Langlaagte to visit the KWV.

Do you have enough for him?

Order! The hon. member for Stellenbosch must kindly withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I invite the hon. member for Langlaagte to the KWV so that we can show him what the KWV has been doing over the years to promote the civilized consumption of wine in this country.

You have done a great deal for the Coloureds, so that they could drown themselves in liquor. [Interjections.]

I wish to say to the hon. member that since he has condemned the Government’s decisions in respect of the recommendations of the Competition Board concerning the restructuring of the liquor trade, I shall reply to him during the discussion of the next Bill on the Order Paper. I think that would be the correct place to do it. I shall also be stating the standpoint of the wine farmers then.

The hon. the Minister was fully justified in remarking, in the course of his speech, that the measure before this House was of a technical nature. However, there are amendments which, in my opinion as a wine farmer, could have a healthy influence on the liquor trade and on community life in general. I am referring here to the Government’s policy of affording more Black people the opportunity, as rapidly as is practicable, of entering the liquor trade in their own residential areas. Amendments are proposed in clauses 1 and 3 which could facilitate the practicability of this policy.

Amendments are being proposed in clause 1 to provide for a simplified procedure for approving and dispersing of applications for liquor licences. In clause 3 a discretion is being incorporated to determine whether a person is competent to obtain a liquor licence and to trade successfully. I think this provision, as well as its formulation, affect to originality. The practicability and implementation of this policy can make an important contribution to improving relations between population groups in this country. The distribution and marketing of all kinds of liquor has often been a source of friction and conflict in Black residential areas in the past. The elimination of this potential for conflict in Black residential areas should therefore be regarded as a breakthrough.

Secondly, as a wine farmer, am grateful for the abolition or removal of obsolete and antiquated provisions of the Liquor Act. I refer here, for example, to clause 4, which replaces section 34 of the Liquor Act to remove the provision of a quota of 2 000 parliamentary voters per liquor licence. Although applications for liquor licences will still be subject to stringent standards, this amendment is once again a natural development in the right direction. The authorization in clause 4, which grants a wine farmer the right, on a more practical basis, to set up a wine tasting room on his premises for bona fide visitors, is welcomed by the entire wine industry. This amendment will contribute to establishing a healthy drinking pattern in our country, a drinking pattern which is based on the consumption of natural wine.

The right granted to collectors of wine in clause 14 to sell wine from their collections, is widely welcomed. I trust that the requirements for the issuing of an authorization to a collector of wine, and the conditions imposed, will be of such that such sales of wine will develop into special occasions. I also foresee that a fine opportunity is being created here for supplementing existing—or even establishing new—wine auctions. It is true that private collectors may have rare wines which otherwise would seldom if ever appear on the market. Such wines could give a new dimension to the concept of wine auctions, and we look forward to these with interest.

I also wish to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the fact that in clause 14 he grants cultural history museums the right to sell distilled products to the public. The hon. the Minister has not only introduced a practical measure, but has ensured that we do not lose a part of our wine culture, viz. the distilling of witblits, a product about which some hon. members in this House have waxed lyrical on occasion.

On behalf of the board of control of the farm museum on Kleinplasie I thank the hon. the Minister most sincerely for his concession. I take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to hear the hon. member for Ceres saying that in his area, where he grew up, there was a glass of wine on the table every day and that that eventually becomes a way of life, a way of life that has been traditional as far back as the days when the Huguenots settled here. He was responding, in fact, to the statements made by the hon. member for Langlaagte who explained that in his constituency he finds, when he walks around, homes in which children, when they come home from school and open the refrigerator, discover that all there is to drink is some nice, cold wine instead of a nice cold coke, and that as a result of this—if I understood him correctly—one finds the children walking around half intoxicated after one or two glasses of wine. [Interjections.] There are certainly many people who use alcohol, but there is an old saying that there are also people who abuse alcohol. I would like to put it to him that it is not really the fault of the children under those circumstances. It is more the fault of the parents.

It is not only in my constituency.

The hon. member said it is not only in his constituency. I agree. It probably takes place in all our constituencies. That is quite probably true, but the point I am trying to make is that I believe that it is the parents who are at fault if that is the sort of environment in which they bring up their children and if that is the sort of thing the children do.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it quite clear, right from the beginning, that as far as the NRP is concerned, on matters involving alcohol—as with other matters involving let us say abortion or religion, etc.—we believe that our members should have what we call a free vote.

Like a local option?

Yes. That is correct.

It is a matter of conscience.

On a matter of conscience, as my hon. leader says, we believe that we should not have the Whip directing us and should be free to act according to our own conscience. The reason for this is, of course, quite clear. There are certain religious feelings amongst our members on these matters, not only the question of alcohol, as I have said, but also on things like abortion and so on. There are religious attitudes that vary from one group to another. There are also moral attitudes concerning these matters. It is for this reason that we believe that our members should decide on these things as they see fit. To my mind it is a pity that other parties do not do the same, because on matters of this sort we should search our consciences while looking at the realities of the problems which face us in order to try to come up with the best form of legislation so that we can in fact meet the needs of those people who, like myself, like to partake of a little alcohol from time to time but also avoid the problems to which the hon. member for Langlaagte referred. This is not an unusual point of view. Hon. members may be interested to know that in other parts of the world the principle of local option when it comes to matters affecting alcohol is very commonly applied.

Look at Fish Hoek.

Fish Hoek in the constituency of Simon’s Town has for many years exercised its right of local option in regard to matters concerning alcohol. In my youth, from the age of 18 to 28, when I was studying in Canada, I saw a large part of Canada and also of the USA. I worked there and went to university there. It may be of interest to hon. members for instance that in Canada the right to decide on these matters devolves as far down the line of government as possible, right down to the local county council or the local town council. When I was a student in Ontario, Canada, I found that, if one wanted liquor, one had to buy it from a provincially run outlet—it was called a “liquor outlet”. One had to have a permit issued by the provincial authorities, who sold the liquor. The bottles were not simply handed to one either. They had to be wrapped up in brown paper so that nobody outside could see that one was carrying bottles of liquor. Today we may say that that is rather verkramp, but that was the way it was done. In some provinces in Western Canada, for instance, women could not get any alcoholic drink in any hotel. Hotels had what they called beer parlours. The men would go and drink their beer in the beer parlour while their wives sat in the lounge having coffee or tea.

Did you drink Canada Dry? [Interjections.]

Providing it was mixed with a little bit of Canadian Club rye whisky; that was the favourite drink.

In the province of Ontario near the university I attended there was a community consisting mainly of a group of people who originally came from Germany and who belonged to the Mennonite religion. In that community there was a little village and if one went there on a Sunday it was like going back in history. I know because I had a summer job in that area at one stage. On Sunday everything was closed up. Not a single commercial enterprise was open.

Just like the Free State.

Believe it or not, in the early 1950s the people there would go to church in a horse and trap and dressed in black, almost like the old pioneer Victoria and Voortrekker dress we had in this country. However, this was in the 1950s.

Like the Kappiekommando.

Yes. However, as I say, this was in the early 1950s. There was no alcohol at all available in that town or in that county because of local option. The people there for religious reasons did not like alcohol and therefore they exercised their right and were entitled to run their county, villages and towns as they saw fit.

On the other hand, some years later I worked in the State of Texas in a county close to the Rio Grande which is on the border with Mexico. If my memory serves me correct, it was the county of Delgado. The town was a place called McAllen. Across the river in Mexico there was a town called Reynosa. If one wanted to enjoy very good entertainment, very good meals and very good alcoholic drinks, one could cross the border and spend an evening in that Mexican town. A good bottle of Scotch or Ron Rico Rum at that time was available at about $1 per bottle, whereas in the USA it cost about $3 to $4 per bottle. So every two or three years they had a referendum in the county of Delgado because the local commercial firms, the hoteliers and so on, wanted to get off-sales licences in order to be able to sell liquor to the local inhabitants. However, every time the referendum was held the people turned it down flat. It was not because they were against the consumption of liquor, but rather because they could cross the border into Mexico and get their bottle of scotch and Ron Rico rum at a dollar a bottle. So one gets both extremes. It was clear to me that the men and women in a county of Ontario and the Texans on the border of Mexico exercised their local option in favour of prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages for totally different reasons. Therefore, on the matter of conscience such as we have here today, we in this party believe that our members are free to vote as they choose.

So what I have to say now, Mr. Speaker—and I should like you to remember that I am talking for myself—is that if I should say “we” and “us” I really mean “I” and “me”. I say this because we in this party are normally terribly united. That is why we always use the words “we” and “us”, because we have confidence in each other. So if I should now say “we” I really mean “I”. On this matter I know that I have tremendous support from many of my members, but in the event that one of them may disagree with me, we believe he has the right to disagree.

On this matter of the consumption of liquor I think it is quite clear to everyone of us that it can be a very pleasurable social occasion to enjoy a nice beer on a hot summer’s day. There can be nothing more pleasurable after a hard morning’s work on one’s farm to go back to one’s home and enjoy a nice cold beer—I was going to say a cold Castle, but I do not believe that I should do any advertising here today. It can be a very pleasurable experience especially when one has one’s friends around and one is acting in a very mature manner and is not abusing liquor.

Why do you not ask for the debate to be adjourned?

Maybe I could ask that the debate be adjourned, as the hon. the Minister suggests, so that we can discuss this matter somewhere else. However, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that you would agree to that. The consumption of liquor can be abused, and it is for this reason that many people on religious and moral grounds believe that there should be a high degree of control. I should like to submit to hon. members that there is also another ground on which there should be control, and that is on economic grounds. The sale of liquor is extremely big business. It involves hundreds of millions of rand every year and it is very good business if one can get into it. Therefore I do believe that there should be some control over the distribution and sale of liquor. I believe, and I put it to the hon. the Minister, that the sale and distribution of liquor should be handled in such a way that liquor is consumed in a manner that will be in the best interests of the people as a whole, i.e. we should try to create an atmosphere where people use liquor for those pleasurable social occasions, as I have said, and do not abuse it. I do not know whether any hon. members have ever been to Australia. In 1963 I was in Sydney, Australia, and there the legislation stated that at a certain time the bars and the pubs must be closed.

Six o’clock swill.

They used to call it the six o’clock swill. I can recall, to my horror, mature men, business and professional men, rushing into a bar and lining up six or seven beers or drinks in order to have their stock before the six o’clock closing time limit. It seemed to be that because it was being denied them, they had to obtain more, and in the process a lot of them got drunk. I think this is a very bad situation to have. I also saw this sort of thing as a young man in Canada where, because of limitations, people tended to over-imbibe. After all, the prohibition days of the United States are a very good example of the sort of thing I am talking about. When something is denied people they feel that they must obtain it at all cost. They feel that they are missing something and then they abuse it or they over-imbibe. In that way the ugly side of the consumption of liquor that we have been talking about starts to express itself in society. Therefore I think we ought to have legislation which would promote the sale and distribution of liquor in such a manner that while accommodating the needs of people, it also avoids abuse as far as is possible. I remember a former colleague, Mr. Cadman, when he was a United Party front-bencher in this hon. House some years ago suggesting that in a place like Soweto we should legalize shebeens and turn them into a type of pub. In England pubs are places of social gathering where liquor is consumed in a mature manner. As the hon. member for Ceres has said, the consumption of liquor is something one must grow up with in a mature way if you do not want to have people overindulging and becoming alcoholics.

For this reason I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that I believe that if we could have our liquor outlets as small as possible and as local as possible so that they form part of the community, of the way of life of the community, perhaps we would be able to avoid some of the pitfalls which have been mentioned in the course of the debate.

As far as the Bill is concerned, much of it is technical and because of that I am not going to oppose the Second Reading. However, there is one clause I am going to use to express certain views. I refer to clause 4. Here, for reasons already given, the quota system as far as licensing outlets are concerned is now being changed from the old system where it was based upon the number of White voters to a system where the board will decide where, when and how to grant licences. In the proposed new Section 34(2) the hon. the Minister has seen fit to grant grocers wine licences in rural areas, whereas in terms of the old section no liquor store licence and no grocer’s wine licence applied for by the holder of a liquor store shall be granted in respect of premises situated in a rural area. So, in the past both types of licences were excluded. But in this new provision the hon. the Minister has decided, in his wisdom, to provide for the granting of a grocer’s wine licence but not a normal liquor store licence when it comes to rural areas.

Now Sir, what does this mean? It means that the hon. the Minister is now giving to large chain stores, the super-markets, the right to have a grocer’s wine licence, but he excludes the granting of the normal liquor licence in rural areas. Sir, we have heard a lot about the wine, liquor and beer monopolies held by certain big groups, and I believe that by rejecting the Competition Boards recommendations, the Government has not acted in the best interest of the people of South Africa. It is not acting in a way to ensure the consumption of liquor in a manner which is in the best interests of our society. Rather I believe it is pandering to big business, to big monopolies, to organizations which command tremendous political influence. The hon. the Minister is flouting the Competitions Board by going against its recommendations and I say he does this because of the lobbying of these large and economically powerful groups which control the sale and distribution of wine, beer and spirits in South Africa. I believe that our legislation should be framed and applied in a manner which will be in the best interests of the public. To my view, large groups, large monopolies, that are promoting the sale of liquor are not in the best interest of society. As far as the sale and distrubtion of liquor is concerned, I believe we should attempt to try to create a larger number of smaller outlets, preferably individually owned, so that there can be a closer relationship between the seller and the purchaser and the distribution and sale of liquor can become a more personal affair instead of the terribly impersonal system that exists today in many areas of South Africa.

I am not alone in my view, Sir. Therefore I should like to quote for the hon. the Minister from the newspaper The Citizen of 26 March this year, a comment in this regard. That newspaper, in a leader titled “Poor Show”, had the following to say—

In the last paragraph it had this to say—

It then goes on to say—

Mr. Speaker, that is the opinion of a newspaper which I hold in fairly high regard, and I believe the hon. the Minister should take very close notice of this. If the Government is allowed to pass legislation which protects joint monopolies like this, legislation which goes right against all the talk we have listened to here of late, about free enterprise, small businessmen, etc.—because the monopolies concerned possess the economic or political or whatever kind of clout we might care to call it—I believe this is a form of hypocrisy, if I may say so, which, I believe, should be condemned.

As I have said, I will be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill but I will certainly not be supporting clause 4 during Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to forgive the hon. member for Amanzimtoti the final part of his speech. That enables me to congratulate the hon. member and to thank him for the part he played, his constructive part in bringing about some cool and calm, and some “Canada Dry” into this debate. I must admit though, Mr. Speaker, that I find this so called local option direction his party is following, quite regrettable. There are only eight hon. members of the NRP in this House. They could have supported us all the way.

*At this point I just want to refer back to a speech made in this House earlier on. It is a pity that the hon. member for Barberton is not present at the moment, because I wanted to appeal to him please to see to it in future that the hon. members of his party do not insist on having a turn to speak in debates of this nature. I want to say that the hon. member for Langlaagte had a great deal to say; that he also had a great deal to say which he knew little about. [Interjections.] However, he did touch on one point to which I, too, want to refer. The issue is what the hon. member called the scourge of wine, or rather liquor, among the Coloured population. The hon. member referred in particular to what had been the case in the past. I concede that point to him at once. However he in turn will have to concede that this scourge, as he calls it, is now of less importance. Indeed, its importance has dwindled at the same time as the distribution of liquor has become considerably freer in recent times. Therefore I should like to know how he justifies his contentions in this regard. I also wish to point out to the hon. member for Langlaagte that it was specifically as a result of the stringent restrictions that existed that there were so many shebeens in those years. It was also as a result of that that so much more methylated spirits was drunk and so much more dagga smoked. If the hon. member wants to argue with me in this regard as well he had better accompany me on a visit to where I was born.

The farmers themselves gave liquor to the Coloureds; surely you know that. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to leave the hon. member for Langlaagte at that. In the short time that I have been sitting in this House I have always believed that when an hon. member stands up to make a speech, he should at least have the necessary knowledge to know what he is talking about. He must also possess the necessary background to enable him to do so.

And the necessary preparation.

I also wish to extend an invitation to the hon. member for Langlaagte to come and make a speech at Wellington. I have a few dozen HNP supporters in my constituency. However, he will convince them within half an hour to vote Nationalist. [Interjections.]

For more than three centuries South Africa has been a wine producing country. If we cast our minds back to the days of Jan van Riebeeck’s entry in his diary—his inscription of “Gode Sy Lof” when he produced his first wine in 1659—and, in the subsequent years, take note of the famous wines of Constantia, wine that graced the tables of kings, that was also used by Napoleon, and then take note of what is being done today on that same farm, Groot Constantia, it is clear that after three centuries South Africa, still produces some of the best wines in the world, and at the lowest possible prices in the world. I want to say that one can only come to one conclusion and that is that we in South Africa have built up a wine tradition.

Unfortunately, however, the fact is that South Africa inherited the greater part of its wine legislation from old Mother England. Great Britain is not a wine producing country. The result is that legislation is Britain was aimed more at imposing restrictive provisions than at promoting a healthy drinking pattern and drinking habits. Initially, having England’s legislation, we really believed that we ought to be even more strict than England. We believed this due to the composition of our population and our ethnic structure, to which the hon. member for Langlaagte also referred. Thus, over the centuries there has been a prohibition of the sale of so-called White liquor to Black people. This was true until relatively recently. A prohibition was also placed on Brown people, in that they were only able to buy a certain quantity. We really believed that if one refused a person something and hid it from him, one fully protected him; almost in the way that cigarettes are concealed, but we all begin to smoke at primary school. We firmly believed that chaos would occur if liquor were distributed more freely. I stress that the term is “more freely” and not “freely”, because there is a tremendous difference between the two. The wine farmer and the wine industry believe in freer distribution and not in free distribution.

It is true that in due course all these old restrictive measures were abolished or changed, but nothing out of the ordinary happened. The thought of what would happen if the Blacks were to begin to drink White liquor, had us in fear and trembling. Only the liquor industry, and the wine farmer in particular, knew that there would not be any chaos. A few anachronisms still remain that we are seeking to remove by way of this legislation. The provision relating to 2 000 White male voters is probably the most ridiculous of those old provisions that still remain. I feel that nowadays one can only laugh at such a provision. The new norm that we should like to lay down is, in our opinion, the only way that is truly relevant. What is one’s norm to be? Only the simple “What is in the public interest”; in other words, what could prejudice the consumer.

Within this concept of modernization we should like to remove this cobwebby British legislation from our Statute Book so that we can ultimately be of service to the public. It is so logical that if anyone possesses something that ought to be negotiable, he ought to be able to sell it in certain circumstances. I now turn to the provisions in terms of which auctions may be held in regard to estates and other circumstances.

There was a time when everyone wanted to drink red wine. I think the hon. member for Stellenbosch referred to that. At the time all our Boland red wines were bought by our Transvaal friends. As they drank it they described the wine as absolutely fantastic. While they shuddered and their gills tightened due to its tartness, they swore that the wine was absolutely fantastic. I can give the assurance that the wine concealed there in dark corners is fantastic today. All we ask as far as this legislation is concerned, is that we as Bolanders be given the opportunity to buy that wine back from our Transvaal friends.

Finally, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister. I wish to do so on behalf of the industry in general but in particular on behalf of the consumers in our country. I thank him for having taken the lead in this regard so that we are now at least dusting out of our Statute Book the old British cobwebs that have stood in the way of a freer but more responsible use of our fine products.

Mr. Speaker, it is entirely correct that the hon. members for Stellenbosch, Ceres and Wellington should participate in this debate because of the areas they represent. [Interjections.] I shall explain in a minute my interest in this Bill. The hon. member for Langlaagte participated in the debate in order to explain to us his opposition to the distribution of alcohol. My interest in this Bill is that I am a dedicated and devoted consumer, and have been for some time, particularly of the products of the wine industry. In fact, I have made a contribution to the economy of the Western Cape for many years in this respect. [Interjections.] Somebody once said: “Candy is dandy but liquor is quicker”.

On an examination of the history of this legislation one finds that prior to Union in 1910 each of the four colonies had its own law pertaining to the control of intoxicating liquor. Since 1910 a whole host of Acts and amending Acts have been passed to consolidate, amend, repeal and control the supply and the sale of liquor. There is no doubt that because liquor is such a contentious or controversial subject—that of course depends upon one’s point of view—there have been all these efforts to reach a satisfactory solution in regard to the control of the liquor supply. The Bill before us is a further effort in this connection. It is a streamlining measure and it is therefore legislation that we shall support.

Almost since man’s beginning he has turned to liquor in one way or another. A friend of mine once expressed the view that if the two of us were to be shipwrecked on a desert island it would not be long before we were fermenting coconuts in order to enjoy an intoxicating drink. There are many references to alcohol in the Bible as well, including the story of the first miracle when Jesus turned water into wine.

I have no desire to enter into the age-old argument about the misuse of liquor. We are all aware of those who misuse it and of the social evils surrounding this problem. I wish to make it clear that I have great sympathy for those many organizations and individuals who work extremely hard to deal with people who are unable to handle liquor and the people who suffer because of the misuse of liquor. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti touched on this subect during his contribution to this debate. He also sought to advise us on the eve of crucial by-elections that there are deep divisions within the NRP and that they are about to split on this issue. [Interjections.]

The first thing I want to do is to express my dismay at the decision of the hon. the Minister to reject the recommendations of the Competition Board. The hon. member for Walmer also mentioned this point and I join him in expressing my dismay particularly in regard to the statement which the hon. the Minister issued on 25 March to The Cape Times to the following effect—

The only reason given for not undoing this decision was that it came about in 1979 with Cabinet approval. In any event, that was what was stated in the newspaper. Each of the three Opposition parties in this House has expressed its disagreement at the way in which the hon. the Minister has handled this matter, and I trust that when he replies he will deal with it in depth.

I also want to say a few words in respect of those of us who enjoy the consumption of liquor in modest amounts, and I emphasize the words “in modest amounts”. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti did touch on the question of enjoying a cold beer. Who can deny the pleasure derived from enjoying a glass of cold beer on a hot summer’s day? Who has not experienced the excitement of the fresh bouquet of a glass of good wine or the tingling of one’s tastebuds when tasting that first mouthful? [Interjections.] Equally there is the mellow feeling of contentment when, after enjoying a good meal, one savours a glass of good port or brandy. All of these pleasures, taken in modest doses, are to be enjoyed, and indeed encouraged. So, as I have mentioned, we will support this Bill. [Interjections.] We will support this Bill because it seeks to streamline the administration of the Liquor Act.

Clause 2 provides for the delegation of power and clause 3 provides for the easing of the situation with regard to the granting of licences. Clause 4 is the kernel of the Bill. All the parties which have taken part in this debate have expressed reservations about this clause. This is a new approach to the issuing of liquor licences and it is one which we will watch carefully. The old system of pegging it to voters was out of date because, as the hon. member for Heilbron quite correctly mentioned, it is not only voters who consume liquor these days. What we would like the hon. the Minister to tell us is whether, in terms of this new formula, there will be more or fewer liquor outlets than we presently have.

That is the crux of the matter.

Clauses 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are reasonable as they ease the administrative machine and make for efficient control. Clause 13 is a particularly good clause. As my hon. colleague for Walmer said, it removes the racial connotation from the Liquor Act, and we welcome that. Clause 14 provides for the updating of the Act by the inclusion of aircraft, where previously only vessels were mentioned. Clause 15 further updates the Act by substituting the new name for the holiday of 16 December, which the hon. the Minister also mentioned.

All in all, we are dealing here with a streamlining of the Liquor Act, and we welcome that. As the hon. member for Langlaagte mentioned, it is a liberalization. For that reason also we welcome this legislation and we will therefore support it.

Mr. Speaker before replying to various questions asked by hon. members I should like to refer briefly to a matter to which various hon. members have referred, and that is the Government’s announcement in regard to the recommendations of the Competition Board concerning the manufacture and distribution of alcoholic liquor in South Africa.

I am of the opinion that this debate is not the occasion to discuss this matter at length. I believe that it would be more appropriate to conduct a debate on the matter during the discussion of my Vote. Accordingly I wish to invite hon. members to discuss the matter further in the course of my Vote. Nevertheless, I wish to reply briefly to certain aspects. I also wish to request hon. members first to make a study of my announcement of 25 March concerning the Government’s standpoint before further debating the matter. Moreover, two letters appeared recently in the letter columns of Die Burger, to which I replied in detail. I say this with reference to questions put to me in this regard. If hon. members were to take the trouble to take a special look at my reply to the letters and at my Press statement, it would be possible to conduct a far more meaningful debate on this matter.

The first aspect to which I should like to refer is that the Competition Board was divided on this matter. There was a majority recommendation as well as a minority recommendation. The hon. member for Walmer and other hon. members referred to the monopoly or so-called monopoly that has supposedly come about in the industry. One side reference is made thereby to the establishment of CWD in 1979. In the first instance, I wish to point out that the establishment of CWD did give rise to a concentration in the wine and spirits industry, but not to a monopoly. The fact is that there is other competition in the wine and spirits industry, competition which does not exist in the beer industry, for example. Therefore, if hon. members look at the structure of the liquor industry I think that in all fairness they must consider the structure as a whole. Within the wine and spirits industry CWD competes not only with other producers and large traders, but also with various estate wine farmers who seek to market their wines in a very aggressive way, and rightly so. I think that if one looks at the figures one will note what progress estate wines have made in recent years, often in competition with existing producer/wholesaler. In the same way many co-operatives, are out to market their product in strong competition with existing producer/wholesalers. Therefore this is not simply a question of there being a so-called monopoly.

I also said in my Press statement, and on various subsequent occasions, that the Government was indeed concerned about the considerable degree of concentration in the liquor industry. However, in assessing the matter, various historical aspects must be taken into account, and regional interests, too, must be taken into account. Accordingly, I put it clearly in my Press statement that although there was a great deal of merit in the proposals of the Competition Board, the Government had to deal with a wider spectrum of data and accordingly did not see its way clear to accepting the majority recommendation of the Competition Board in this regard.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North quoted from a newspaper which gave, as the only reason why the restructuring of Cape Wine was not possible, the fact that the establishment of CWD was approved in 1979 by the Cabinet. That is not true. Let me quote from my Press release of 25 March 1983. The relevant paragraph reads as follows—

That is the first sentence. Let me quote further—

The hon. member must bear in mind that during 1979 and the preceeding years a tremendous beer war took place, something that was certainly to the detriment of the wine industry at that time.

Not to the detriment of the public.

It was a very monopolistic position, even then. [Interjections.] Let me continue quoting from my Press release—

Because the Government could not, at that time, see its way clear to accept the recommendations of the Competition Board on the restructuring of CWD it could not continue to demand of the other producer/wholesalers that they relinquish their off-sales.

*In considering this matter—and this is the point—the Cabinet was faced with various conflicting interests and because the Cabinet did not see its way clear to dissolveing Cape Wine, which came into being in 1979, it would also not have been fair to leave the rights of one group unaffected while proceeding to make inroads on the rights of other groups.

I should like to point out to those hon. members who have advocated that the recommendations of the Competition Board should have been accepted as they stood, that even in the liquor industry conflicting recommendations were made to us, representations asking that the recommendation of the Competition Board should not be accepted. Allow me to mention a few. Fedhasa made a very strong plea for non-acceptance of the recommendation of the board with regard to beer in grocers’ stores. Fedhasa also made a very strong plea for non-acceptance of the recommendation of the board concerning the freer availability of grocery store licences. In addition, Fedhasa made a very strong plea to the effect that a limitation should be imposed on the number of liquor store licences. In the same way, smaller producer-wholesalers—not CWD—made out a strong case to the effect that if they were deprived of their liquor store retail outlets, they would not be able to survive.

Therefore there were various strong standpoints on the recommendations of the Competition Board which the Government had to take into account. In an effort to achieve reconciliation among the conflicting interests, it was decided to maintain the status quo. The Government did not in fact introduce a new dispensation. The Government asked: Is it not possible to retain the existing position which developed historically—it has perhaps not developed ideally, but it has developed historically? We tried to remain as close as possible to the existing situation. This meant that rights granted to smaller producer-wholesalers were maintained with regard to the number of the retail outlets. However, it has also meant that as far as the CWD was concerned the retail outlets at present controlled by that group remained under their control. In reality, 302 retail outlets are not being allocated to CWD. The two partners, each of which has a 30% interest in the CWD, viz. SAB and Rembrandt, at present have more than 300 liquor store licences. This is a restructuring of the status quo by saying that Breweries as well as Rembrandt have to give up some of their licences so that they can be transferred to CWD. This is not a new allocation in the true sense of the word. As far as possible the existing position is being retained as regards CWD as well.

Unfortunately it is true that everyone in the liquor industry stresses those aspects with which they differ. As I have indicated, each of these groups also has much to be grateful for. For example, Fedhasa would certainly have to say that the recommendation that beer must not be sold in grocers’ stores is something they should be very thankful for, plus the fact that specific restrictions are imposed on the number of licences in the possession of one group or person. I could proceed to indicate that in fact, every group finds aspects in this decision by the Government that supports its position and gives it reason to be grateful. What happens, however, is that they concentrate on isolated aspects which are supposedly unacceptable and the Government is criticized for having supposedly not accepted the recommendations of the Competition Board and thereby placed the liquor industry and the consumer in an untenable situation. I agree that the situation is not ideal, but when has there ever been an ideal dispensation in the liquor industry? When have the manufacture and distribution of liquor in South Africa even been at a level at which everyone was satisfied? It has been a point of dispute over the years, and various commissions have investigated the possibility of the restructuring of the liquor industry. I believe we can, after all, take a fresh look at this industry and that decisions can be taken which promote stability and order in this industry.

I now wish to reply to certain aspects referred to here by the hon. members. I should also just like to come back to the remarks in this regard by the hon. member for Walmer—the hon. member for Stellenbosch has already referred to him. To come here and contend that the Government will now simply award licences to its friends, to members of the NP, is a total misconception of reality. The fact is that it is not the Minister that awards licences. There is a prescribed procedure in terms of which this has to take place. [Interjections.] The hon. member is merely displaying his ignorance by laughing so uproariously about that. He would do well to go and read the Act. If the Liquor Board turns down an application it does not even get to the Minister. The Liquor Board was established and the legislation accordingly amended to make it possible for the board to eliminate a problem which existed in the past. Hon. members will recall that in the past, the method of awarding liquor licences was open to abuse. Hon. members are aware of the extent to which pressure was exerted and efforts were made to persuade members of Parliament to be in favour of certain recommendations, and how all kinds of efforts were made at the local level and elsewhere to obtain licences, and often not in the most satifactory way. That is why the Liquor Board was established, viz. to be able to assess an application objectively in the light of the public interest, removed from personal and group interests. To come here and make the insinuation that the Government simply hands out licences to its friends not only attests to ignorance of the operations of the Liquor Board, but is also unworthy of a member of this House.

†The hon. member for Walmer also dealt with the clause which removes the present quota system and referred to the Competition Board’s report on licensing. In that respect I should again like to refer him to my statement, in which I clearly said that the Government is not in favour of a free system of licensing. The hon. member will recall that the Competition Board proposed that the present system of licensing, should be replaced by a system whereby all those who comply with certain uniform objective standards and requirements should be licensed as retailers. In other words, if you meet certain standards, then a licence automatically should be granted to you. The Government is not in favour of such a free system of licensing, but would like to retain its responsibility in terms of the public interest—I shall come back to that later—to grant licences.

*Therefore it is not true that by means of this amendment the Government is proposing a freeer system of licensing. It is being done to keep abreast of the demands of the times because, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch indicated very clearly, circumstances have arisen that have overtaken the old quota system. The quota system has fallen into disuse. We cannot retain it. If it were to remain in the Statute Book it would be impractical. Even since 1982 the Department of Internal Affairs no longer provides the Liquor Board with the population figures that are required to give proper effect to this provision. The modern computerized system of population registration makes this impossible. The hon. member for Stellenbosch pointed out that there were other reasons why the quota system has fallen into disuse. Other licences have been awarded, viz. section 23 licences and grocers’ wine licences, which makes the existing norm irrelevant. That is why the Government is amending the Act, but on the clear assumption and standpoint that by doing so we are not abandoning our responsibility in regard to the awarding of licences. The Government recognizes that the abuse of liquor can lead to social evils. Accordingly we have a responsibility towards the community and it is the duty of the Liquor Board, a duty entrusted to it by legislation, to take all these circumstances into account. I thank the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who for many years was an honoured and respected member of the Liquor Board, for his very constructive contribution in this debate. He speaks as a person with wide experience and expertise with regard to the awarding of liquor licences, and that is why he was able to attest to the balanced and responsible way in which the Liquor Board operates in considering and awarding licences.

This brings me to the hon. member for Langlaagte. I do not wish to become engaged in a major argument with the hon. member at this point. It seems to me that our respective points of departure differ somewhat. The availability of liquor must not be summarily equated with the abuse of liquor. Use and abuse are two entirely different matters. From the explanation I have just given I hope the hon. member will understand that the Government is not abandoning its responsibility to award licences judiciously. The position of the Liquor Board is in no way being assailed. Indeed, the hon. member said that we should give the Liquor Board more muscle. That, in fact, is what is happening here. This is happening in that we are now saying to the Liquor Board that a specific limitation with regard to the awarding of licences, to which it was previously subject, is now being removed.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. As he said, the problems lie with the abuse of liquor. He also said that the more freely liquor is available, the less it is abused.

Order! The hon. member cannot make a speech now. He must only put his question to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. Minister whether he is of the opinion that the free availability of drugs to the public will result in people eventually using them less. Indeed, will the consumption not increase as a result?

Mr. Speaker, allow me to reply to the hon. member’s question within the framework of the subject we are dealing with now, namely liquor. The first thing the hon. member must bear in mind is that liquor is indeed freely available. What we are debating today is not the question whether liquor should be freely available or not. The fact is that liquor is indeed freely available; freely available on demand. Nor is this based on a decision that has been taken today. Indeed, it is the basis on which the Liquor Board has been awarding licences for years. Liquor is available on demand, and liquor is as far from the hon. member as his telephone. He need only pick up his telephone and order liquor. Everyone can order liquor by telephone.

That is just the problem.

But that does not mean that that necessarily goes hand in hand with abuse. Every hon. member in this House would support a motion asking that the consumption of liquor in a more civilized and responsible way be promoted. I believe that the hon. member for Ceres made a very important contribution in that regard by pointing out how liquor could be used in a civilized and responsible way. There is no doubt that there are abuses. Indeed, the hon. member referred to them. Therefore I do not wish to deny that various types of abuse do exist.

In Time Magazine of 25 April this year a very interesting article appeared in regard to an authoritative new study on alcoholism. The title is “New insights into alcoholism”. The article was written by a certain scientist by the name of Dr. Valiant. He carried out a variety of investigations and I just want to point out to hon. members that a comprehensive investigation was carried out in Ireland, where there are certain patterns of consumption. It was found, inter alia, and I quote—

That was the tradition in Ireland. What was the result? I quote again—

This causes Dr. Valiant to come to the following conclusion—

The responsible use of liquor must therefore be instilled in the home. Therefore I just wish to emphasize to the hon. member for Langlaagte that this Government, too, strongly opposes the abuse of liquor. I know that the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare is also doing a tremendous job in this regard together with his department.

However, when we argue about the availability of liquor we must not equate availability with the abuse of liquor and the formation of unhealthy habits and alcoholism.

Now the hon. member has also gone further here and asked questions relating to the removal of the quota system, as if this would supposedly entail a new flood of licences. That is not the case. Even the removal of the quota means that the Liquor Board will still have to consider licences in terms of statutory prescriptions. For the information of this House I just wish to refer to section 37 of the Act and to at least three of the provisions in terms of which the Liquor Board is bound in considering licences. The Liquor Board has to take into account inter alia the following: Consideration of the Police report and all relevant documents, information, objections, replies thereto and representations transmitted to the board in terms of the provisions of the legislation. The board must take these documents into account with due regard to—and in this connection I should like to quote section 37(3)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii)—

The Liquor Board has to take that into account. Secondly—

Therefore even without the quota the Liquor Board has to take into account the number of retail outlets. Thirdly—

The hon. member for Stellenbosch also referred here to other matters such as the presence of schools, educational institutions and so on, which are relevant here.

I want to thank the hon. member for Ceres for his constructive contribution. The hon. member is a person with a very intimate knowledge of the liquor industry and can speak about it with great authority, and not only that. Over the years the hon. member has also done a tremendous amount to promote the wine industry in South Africa, and it is therefore with great appreciation I listened to the positive recommendations made by the hon. member in that he briefly singled out the plus points of the legislation, as it were, and pointed out how this legislation made the marketing of liquor more streamlined and how the awarding of an authorization in terms of which collectors could sell their liquor could also make this into a special occasion. I think that the hon. member put forward a very constructive idea. The legislation does not merely provide that a collector who is in financial difficulties can realize his asset; it also creates the possibility that an auction of exceptionally rare wines could become a fine occasion that would be to the benefit of the wine industry. I also wish to thank the hon. member for his remarks about the institutions of cultural history. I obtained an excellent bottle of witblits from the open air museum which I shall leave on the shelf provisionally, until the right occasion presents itself. We believe that while these open air museums and cultural institutions incur heavy expense to distill, and then sit with a product which, under the old dispensation, they could not market, it is only right to afford them the opportunity to sell this product and at least give the visitor to that museum an idea of how this product used to taste.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti also referred to the free vote or option exercised not only in his party but in also in parts of the country—he also referred to Canada and elsewhere—where local option existed. I am very pleased that the hon. member referred to the fact that with local option many illegal trading systems or patterns also develop. The problem is that if there is an imbalance in the country, the only way to rectify it is very often illegal. We want to have control, just as was advocated by the hon. member, but control in such a way that the abuses of such control can be avoided and, on the other hand, to be alert not to allow too much freedom that could also cause abuses. Therefore we hope to maintain a balance by allowing the Liquor Board to decide in terms of the public interest. This is not simply a vague term. The public interest in terms of the Liquor Act has been tested in court several times.

*There are several court findings that define this concept with reference to liquor licences and therefore serve as guidelines for the Liquor Board in their consideration of licences.

†The hon. member also referred to the Black townships and the policy of the Government to grant more licences in those areas. I want to assure him that in the same responsible manner we should like to involve more Black residents. We should like them to participate in the legal trade in liquor. We have a number of obstacles, however. We are trying to remove one of them in terms of the Bill and that is the long procedure which has to be followed in the granting of licences. We are trying to streamline that procedure. There are also other difficulties, but I can assure the hon. member that the chairman of the Liquor Board and my department are continuously trying to expedite the whole process and to involve more Black people in their own areas in the liquor trade as such.

*The hon. member for Wellington made a sound contribution, for which I thank him. He tendered his apologies for not being able to be here while I replied to the debate, due to circumstances. He referred to the abuses that have occurred in the past. I agree wholeheartedly with him that as regards the Liquor Act as well, we must not be static but must consider in a responsible way how the legislation can be improved to prevent abuses while also giving effect to the fact that this is a commodity that is traded. Naturally, due to the nature of the product, liquor has to be marketed with caution. Accordingly the Government exercises considerable caution in exercising control in this regard. Ultimately, however, it is still a commercial commodity and it was for that reason that after due consideration the Commission for Administration decided to transfer the administration of the Liquor Act to the Department of Industries and Commerce. After all, the issue here is a commercial activity. In this regard we also have to take due account of competition and sound marketing principles. This we are trying to do with great responsibility without thereby losing sight of the nature of the commodity.

†The hon. member for Johannesburg North—at a time his was a neighbouring constituency to mine—referred to the streamlining of the legislation. He spoke on behalf of the consumer. I think it is important that in a debate of this nature the consumer should also be heard, but he is of course not the only consumer in this Chamber.

I have dealt with the 1979 approval of the Competition Board. The hon. member came out very strongly in support of the Bill. That just proves that there is something in the Bill for anybody to support. I thank him for his support.

He concluded his speech by asking me whether there will be more or fewer licences once the quota system is removed. That will depend on the merits of the applications. They will be judged according to the norm “what is in the public interest” by the Liquor Board. Should the board regard it necessary to approve an application, it will then be referred to the Minister who will give final approval. The hon. member must bear in mind that even under the old system the number of licences were increasing continuously. Every year new applications were approved. There certainly was no standstill in the number of licences. As a matter of fact, it is interesting to note that all kinds of licences—for instance on-consumption and off-consumption licences—total more than 5 000 today. We talk about the number of licences controlled by one group. This can vary from a few liquor licences to up to 300, as in the case of Cape Wine. However, that must also be seen in the light of the more than 5 000 liquor distribution points in South Africa. Certainly, as in the past, more licences will be granted, after thorough investigation by the board, in cases where the applications have merit and where it is judged by the board and afterwards by the Minister to be in the public interest.

*I believe that I have now dealt with the majority of aspects. During the Committee Stage we shall have another opportunity to deal in greater detail with some of the recommendations. I thank hon. members in general for their support and constructive contributions.

I do not want to conclude before having conveyed, on behalf of this House, our sincere thanks to the chairman of the Liquor Board, Mr. Tommy Vorster, and his staff, and to the other members of the Liquor Board who perform a major and difficult task with exceptional skill. The fact that there are so few problems in connection with the literally thousands of distribution outlets in the country, also attests to the responsible way in which the Act is being administered by the Liquor Board.

Question agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Bill was passed by this House in 1979 and came into operation on 1 January 1980. The Act provided for the establishment of the Competition Board which commenced with its duties on 1 January 1980. The legislation followed on the unanimous recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955 (Act 24 of 1955).

†The Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act has now been in operation for just over three years. During this period the board has completed a number of important investigations, for example on explosives, price discrimination, alcoholic beverages and the abolition of price control on, amongst others, cement, clay bricks, tyres, glass bottles, fertilizers and margarine. In addition, more than 250 preliminary investigations have been completed by the board.

In applying the Act, it however became clear that, in particular, a number of technical amendments and adjustments had to be made to facilitate the smooth operation and the practical application of the provisions of the Act. At the same time it is believed that such amendments will remove any uncertainties that may exist in respect of certain aspects thereof.

*The most important amendments in the Bill entail the following: Section 1 of the Act defines a “restrictive practice”. The interpretation of the word “calculated” creates uncertainty in the definition. Since the restriction of competition does not indicate a restrictive or planned result and the word “calculated” does contain an element of intent, the matter may be rectified if “likely” is substituted for “calculated”.

In terms of section 3(2) of the Act the Competition Board consits of not fewer than two and not more than five other members, appointed by the State President. It is desirable, as a practical measure, that the Act be so amended as to make provision for increasing the number of members of the board by two.

At present the position is that all the members of the board, apart from the chairman, are part-time members. It may become desirable in the near future to appoint more full-time members. So in all probability it will soon be necessary to enlarge the board as its activities increase. Enlarging the board makes it possible to appoint a further member on a part-time or full-time basis whenever it becomes necessary to do so in order to ensure the effective functioning of the Act.

†The most important amendment is that contained in the proposed new section 8(1). This provision empowers the board to demand returns in connection with, inter alia—

To strengthen the Government’s and the board’s control over acquisitions in particular, specifically in concentrated business sectors, it is necessary that section 8(1) of the Act be reformulated in such a manner that it is clear that the board has the authority to request any person to advise the board, on request, of his proposed business agreements.

The proposed amendment will thus enable the board to request any party, either on its own initiative or upon request of the Minister or the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, to furnish it with information in regard to any business agreement, or planned business agreement, in any industry or sector of the economy, including acquisitions. This will undoubtedly better equip the board to act timeously against the development of undesirable structural changes in the economy.

*The next aspect I wish to elucidate is problems of interpretation which are at present being experienced in relation to section 12(2). In terms of this section the board has to establish whether there are circumstances which justify a particular practice in the public interest or whether an acquisition is not justified in the public interest. The English text of the relevant section reads—

It is important that the real intention be made clear, viz. that, after consideration of all the advantages and disadvantages of a restrictive practice, the board must be satisfied that on balance it is justified in the public interest and that it cannot be argued that only one advantageous factor, however slight, compels the board to condone such practice in the public interest.

A further amendment of importance is the one being made to section 12(4). In order to expedite the procedure in respect of the making known of reports this section is being amended in such a manner that reports may be made available to interested parties at an earlier stage, i.e. before they have been tabled or published in the Gazette. Such a step will only be taken when it is feasible.

The proposed amendment of section 14(1) ought to remove problems of interpretation which may exist in relation to the determination of “public interest” in section 14(1) and to bring this section in line with section 12(2).

†The proposed amendment of section 14(3)(a) of the Act makes the publication of a report in the Gazette no longer a compulsory prerequisite for the publication of a notice by the Minister. This amendment would mean that a notice in terms of section 14(1)(c) of the Act could be published after the relevant report has been tabled in Parliament and that the procedures prescribed in the Act could be applied more effectively and with less delay than at present.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition welcomes any strengthening of this Act. We believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to set the rules of the game. It is the Government that establishes the environment in which private enterprise works, and then private enterprise works, competes and struggles in that environment in accordance with those rules.

I think there is a general realization of the fact that capital cannot be allowed free rein. The problem is: How does a Government obtain the ingenuity and the commitment to efficiency that is available in the private enterprise system, without allowing private enterprise either to involve itself in certain practices that could be of disadvantage to the community, or else perhaps to exploit natural resources irresponsibly for its own benefit, something which the community cannot afford and which would ultimately be to its disadvantage? The correct balance between unwarranted beaurocratic intervention and the old, Victorian, completely free, enterprise system is very difficult to establish. There are certain strategies available to a government in order to achieve this. Probably the most effective and best one is to maintain an environment in which there can be free competition. It as, I think, been proved beyond a doubt that the free enterprise system can produce goods and services most economically where one has competition and an open market in which companies struggle for business.

The Bill before us, which strengthens the board, is one we welcome. South Africa has experienced the failure of price control to achieve any of its intended objectives. We have seen that under price control the items to which price control has been applied have not even been able to maintain their levels in relation to the consumer price index but have, generally speaking, far outstripped the rate of the consumer price index. I believe that the Competition Board is quite correct when it states—

When one is thinking of strengthening the board and one is thinking of the type of legislation we have before us now, it is quite interesting to consider the alternative of price control. Why has it been so unsuccessful? I believe that, when price increases come through with the authority of the Price Controller, that breaks down customer resistance. Also, it leads to indexed quotations. People quote relevant to the official price, and any increase in the official price is automatically provided for in the terms of the contract. Thirdly, it is impossible for any government official to establish what the price of an article should be. The market mechanism has to produce the price. Fourthly, it concentrates managers’ minds on how they are going to get a price increase from the Price Controller—I have seen this so often—rather than on how to produce more effectively and more efficiently. It also encourages producers to work together instead of in competition.

The extension of the board’s power to gather information is important, because the South African economy is structured in such a way that it is particularly susceptible to the development of conditions which are not conducive to a free, competitive market. If one stops to consider how this economy grew, I think it becomes obvious why this should be so. Capital generation developed in a very concentrated form around the great mineral deposits: Firstly diamonds, then gold, then base metals and then coal. This tended to concentrate wealth generation in the hands of the great mining houses. To aggravate matters, the location of the mining deposits led to a geographic concentration of mining houses on the Reef. As additional mineral resources were discovered, it was logical that those companies with the necessary expertise and the capital available should develop them. The geographic centralization of wealth, expertise and the market meant that, when the country was ready for the industrial revolution, this industrial revolution was also concentrated in that one geographic area, and the companies with the wealth and expertise tended to take a leading part in that industrial revolution. It was only natural that a complex pattern of interlocking investments directorates and social and family alliances evolved, and this has tended to concentrate the ownership of the means of production in very few hands and to inhibit inter-company competition. The power contained in clause 3 of the Bill to gather information about intended agreements is necessary to meet the kind of situation I have described.

Just to illustrate how severe this concentration is, I want to quote the following figures: 2,7% of all undertakings in the manufacturing sector were responsible for 50% of the turnover; 6,3% employ 60% of all employees; and 6% own slightly over 85% of all fixed assets. The Bill draws in wider terms certain of the board’s powers—and I think it is necessary—to meet a circumstance like this. However, what I have described is unfortunately less than half the story of an economy vulnerable to unrestricted trade practices. The other half concerns the public sector and parastatal organizations like the SATS where the market mechanism is frequently grossly distorted. There is also the establishment of ill-conceived strategic industries like the ADE project and the exclusive manufacture of truck axles and power trains. There are the administered prices of fuels, food, agricultural products, power, transport and very much more besides. Finally there is another vast influence that one must think of when one is talking about maintenance of competition, namely the influence of statutory interference for ideological purposes. The inhibition of competition in the labour market through labour immobility is one example, and the distortion of inter-factory competition as a result of incentives and preferences given to industries is another. Any attmept to promote and maintain competition is logical in the circumstances. However, what shatters public confidence are matters like the one we discussed earlier. I refer to the question of the Government’s reaction to the recommendation of the Competition Board concerning the liquor trade. I respect the hon. the Minister’s request and I shall not discuss that matter further now. We can discuss it again, as the hon. the Minister suggests, when we discuss his own Vote.

What is necessary is that, in the promotion and maintenance of competition, the Competition Board has to attack its problem on a broad front. But I have a feeling that it is not going to do that. I cannot stress this point too much: It is very important that the Government should enjoy the confidence of the commercial community in what it is trying to do. In the light of the uncompetitive situation in the South African economy, did the Government not perhaps intend—and this is a question that is being asked—to create in the Competition Board a body that was a bulldog with rubber teeth, a body that could be directed only at soft targets and moved away from others? That is a genuine concern of the business community as a result of the recent findings of that board and the treatment that those findings received. I believe that it is very important that the Government should take this seriously into consideration. In the light of its repudiation of the recommendations to dismantle the monopolistic structure of the liquor industry and a whole series of other things, we have got to consider the amount that has been allocated in the budget for the Competition Board. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would answer a question on this. One of the reasons why one questions the Government’s faith in this board is that, in the coming year the budget for the board has dropped from R305 000 to R283 000. Is that correct?

There are staff shortages.

Staff shortages? Then we have a very unsatisfactory situation. We believe that the hon. the Minister should be building up that body. It cannot do its job now. We pay tribute to it for what it has already done, but I do not believe that one can just accept that because of staff shortages we are going to spend 20%, or whatever it is, less this year on the Competition Board than we did last year.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Walmer for his positive contribution with regard to the activities of the Competition Board. He was critical of certain recommendations of the board which the Government did not accept, but in all fairness, I must just say that whereas the board has already had 293 applications before it since its inception in January 1980, the hon. member only referred to a single case in which the hon. the Minister spelt out why the recommendations had not been accepted.

When I recall the first day I came and sat here in this Parliament and was able to listen to the debates on the economy—that was way back in 1961 when I sat here as a young official—when I was able to listen to the political parties arguing about the economy across the floor of this House, how the Government referred to the Opposition as the capitalists and how the word “Hoggenheimer” was bandied about even by this side of the House, and when I compare this with where we stand today, in that the governing party is absolutely determined to promote the free market system in South Africa, I maintain that we have come a long way.

My father was also a member of that generation who said that every business man was a crook. Many of our Afrikaner people grew up with that approach. However, as we progressed, the more we said to ourselves that that was not quite true; only some of them are crooks. Fortunately we have now reached the stage of calling a halt and realizing that all the positive initiatives of these people should be exploited in the interests of our country. The Competition Board plays a tremendous role in our economy, and I should therefore like to thank the hon. the Minister and all the officials of his department who are involved in carrying out the functions of the Competition Board for what is being achieved. Nevertheless, I feel that it is necessary for the public to be better informed about the activities of the Competition Board; about what can and cannot be done. To me one of the alarming things in South Africa is that there are thousands, tens of thousands of young people, Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking, who leave school and go into the world without knowing the ABC of the economy. These are young people who are completely uninformed.

Look at Daan van der Merwe, for example.

Then, when the State wants to utilize these people as economic beings, when it wants to utilize their initiative, their labour, as well as our materials and our capital to the full, we are saddled with an adult population who have completed their school careers, but who still gave to be educated by the State.

Therefore I feel that the activities of the Competition Board constitute only one of the possibilities which present the hon. the Minister and the department with the opportunity to state very clearly to the public, by way of an information campaign, what the Government is doing, why we should have competition, how we are promoting competition by way of the present measure, and then, in particular, what we cannot do. Many of our people are of the opinion that monopolies are inherently bad. Consequently, when a monopoly develops, it is usually something which, by implication, has to be condemned because it is supposedly contrary to all proper rules of the economy. Of course, that is not true, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, there are monopolies that have arisen due to the nature and the structure of the South African economy, due to capital requirements, for example, and that are not unacceptable as such. There are also new developments in the South African economy which are causing many of our people considerable concern, because they only read about them in the newspapers. These are also things that fall under the jurisdiction of the Competition Board. One of these is the tremendous number of take-overs which occur in South Africa. These take-overs as such are not necessarily wrong, since in many respects this is often part of the process of rationalization which could lead to the better utilization of our labour and our initiatives.

I have made these few remarks with regard to the Bill before the House at present because I am convinced that we have a task to educate our people, to guide and inform them with regard to what is being done by the Government. When another Bill was being discussed in this House earlier today, I made the remark that the NP’s economic philosophy was that the least government is the best government. We believe in fewer restrictions and more freedoms. We believe that with the tremendously broad exploitable informal economic sector we have in South Africa, we can generate an economic development campaign in South Africa with an instrument such as this Competition Board, as well as the Small Business Development Corporation, which is its younger brother, which will amaze us all in the next few decades as regards what can really be done in South Africa.

As a former rugby player, who was able to make full use of a good gap, the hon. the Minister has filled all in South Africa who want to listen and who want to see how these things are done, with enthusiasm for the economic potential of South Africa over the past few years. If we seize all the possibilities in South Africa with these instruments as a basis, I believe we shall indeed make South Africa a country of producers, and not a country of parasites. I therefore thank the hon. the Minister for the instruments incoporated in this Bill. I believe that we shall achieve a great deal through it.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to be able to say that I support this legislation. I think that every instrument placed in the hands of this hon. House in order to give it more force, more potency, is a valuable instrument. The hon. member for Innesdal spoke about the hon. the Minister who had made good use of the gap. Nowadays the businessman is making use of a gap which is really only a narrow chink. I think one of the most difficult tasks the Competition Board has is to do its work effectively. One of the most difficult things in the world is to monitor the activities of a cartel properly. Usually they have an unwritten agreement. I know what I am talking about. [Interjections.] In addition, they have unwritten rules. One does not put it in writing. Such an agreement could simply be: “Come, let me produce for you.” We could mention the example of a chain-store. “I shall only purchase a certain brand from you. I shall purchase it this year, next year and in the years that lie ahead, but you and I do not have an agreement on that score.” What happens is that other people cannot get into the cartel for the purposes of selling, and consequently such an organization becomes a massive and powerful one. I should like to mention an example of this.

At one stage I was involved in the production of foodstuffs, and I acquired a certain amount of experience in that field. I think the hon. member for Ventersdorp will understand when I say that despite the fact that one is able to sell the best foodstuffs at 10% or 20% cheaper, certain organizations are not going to purchase those foodstuffs from one because in terms of the unwritten rules, they have already committed themselves to another firm that will supply them with those foodstuffs over the next 10 or 15 years. We could mention the example of peanuts. Nowadays there is only one distributor of that product. We have found that peanuts are sold cheaper by the stores than one can purchase them anywhere else in South Africa. The reason for this is very simple. One simply builds a future for one’s son in a company which incurs a loss for four or five or six years. How does one do this? One sells that merchandise at a loss and one builds up a loss of several million rands for that son. As soon as all the competitors are out of the picture, no one can ask one for one’s books and say that one is building up a cartel.

Order! The hon. member should deal a little more specifically with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with it. I am dealing with the crux of the matter.

He has actually gone past it! [Interjections.]

What I am referring to here, is a fait accompli. The Competition Board cannot tell such a person that he is pushing others out, since he simply sells at a loss until he has cornered the market. After he has cornered the market, he increases his prices by 30%. His son now enters the business world with a loss of R30 million which the company has incurred. This means that his son starts out with a profit of approximately R20 million, and that at the expense of the taxpayer. However, no one can find out about it. One cannot do this by way of a submission. That is why I am saying that the hon. the Minister and the board have a tremendous problem in curbing these practices.

That is why I am saying that we welcome this legislation. We say to the hon. the Minister that this is an extremely difficult task, since one does not wish to, nor can one introduce price control on articles; it does not work. It does not work anywhere. Nevertheless, we must take note when a board makes a recommendation. We should go down on our knees. When I say that, I mean that we should bend over as far as possible to accept the board’s recommendation.

I think our cement industry is an absolute disgrace today. One can go and look at the turnover. Something else which I am extremely concerned about, is dynamite. We are dealing here with a shocking cartel. No one who participates ever gets more than 26%, since one has to keep on going to court and delve far back in history and rake up other facts. One simply cannot get through the maze.

That is an extremely explosive situation.

If one goes into certain of these matters, one finds that the Competition Board really has an absolutely impossible task. I think the board should be strengthened, as far as the number of members is concerned as well. The board should also be provided with more instruments in order to perform its task.

If one looks at the Johannesburg Stock Exchange today and one considers the way in which all the sectors are intertwined, one finds that within a very short space of time South Africa will no longer need a Government. In fact, an hon. member has said that they are no longer governing; the less government, the better. South Africa will no longer need a Government; to a large extent it will be run by all the cartels, but at least we will still be able to take care of the water we drink. I foresee problems in the future. In my opinion, the hon. the Minister has acted favourably in many respects, but I request that the Competition Board be granted more powers in future. We should go out of our way to accept recommendations made by the board. We support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Langlaagte and his party for supporting this Bill.

In another debate earlier this evening the hon. member for Langlaagte and other hon. members said that the Government’s decisions concerning the recommendations of the Competition Board on the restructuring of the Liquor trade had brought the credibility of the board into question. As a wine farmer, I should like to react to that statement. I believe that that accusation levelled at the Government is unfounded and unfair.

Right at the outset I wish to make three introductory remarks, remarks which will assist in explaining the Government’s decisions concerning the liquor trade in a more balanced and realistic way.

Since 1905 there have been seven Government investigations into the liquor trade, and not once has the Government been able to implement all the recommendations resulting from these investigations. Why not? The reply is simple. There are various interest groups with widely divergent, irreconcilable, vested interests in the liquor trade.

The second remark is that the report of the Competition Board on the liquor trade endorses the truth of this statement. The recommendations of the Competition Board were not unanimous. There was also a minority report. Therefore the board differed markedly in respect of the basic premises which it laid down in order to bring about a reconciliation between these two divergent and conflicting interests in the liquor trade.

I also wish to make a third remark. The recommendations on the restructuring of the liquor trade in the majority report were presented as a package deal. Consequently, they had either to be rejected or accepted as a whole.

In view of the historic development and planning in the liquor trade, the marked differences in the premises of the Competition Board, and the form in which the recommendations of the majority report were presented, it therefore means that the Government’s decisions in this regard are not illogical and shocking, but quote natural and practicable.

Let us analyse the Government’s decisions in view of this statement. According to a Cabinet decision in November 1979, the CWD was allowed to continue to exist. This decision was diametrically opposed to the recommendations of the Competition Board that the CWD, which had a market share of approximately 75%, should effectively be dissolved, whereas S.A. Breweries, with a beer share of 100% was allowed to continue to exist. Of course, this recommendation of the board is completely unacceptable. The double standards and inconsistent norms which are being applied here are illogical and have serious discriminatory consequences for the wine and spirits industries. As was stated in the minority report, the public interest would be better served by leaving the CWD intact in the sphere of wine and spirits. A liquor industry concentrated in this way could be more stable and fair to agricultural and regional interests than one in which a beer monopoly has to contend with fragmented competition from wine and spirits. The board proposed that should S.A. Breweries abuse its power in any way, such actions would be investigated by the board and be prohibited by the Minister on its recommendation. As Mr. A. J. Marais has put it in his minority report, no such possibility of action was envisaged at all in regard to the wine and spirits industry. There is no reason why this statement could not also apply in respect of the CWD. After all, the CWD was established in terms of a Cabinet decision in 1979, and a complicated financial structuring followed, in which the public also had a share. Consequently, it is not shocking, but obvious that the Government supports the realistic approach of the minority report.

The decision not to allow beer to be sold in grocery stores was the Government’s second decision. For fear of being accused of running down another product in order to promote my own, I prefer to read to this House what the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut wrote to the hon. the Minister in August 1982 in this regard. I quote—

Therefore the Government’s decision in this regard was neither illogical nor shocking, but quite natural. That is why, as a producer, I have a great deal of appreciation for the Government’s decision, as formulated by the hon. the Minister in his Press statement of 25 March—

The third decision of the Government was the decision not to force a division between the wholesale and retail trades in the liquor industry, but to maintain the status quo, and consequently to grant the CWD the right to obtain 300 outlets.

The wine farmers, through their mouthpiece, the KWV, have for many years held the outspoken opinion that there should be total separation between the retail and wholesale sectors in the liquor trade. This fundamental principle was stated very openly and clearly by the KWV in its negotiations with the hon. the Minister and the Government with regard to this matter. This fundamental principle was also supported by other institutions such as Rembrandt, Fedhasa, the S.A. Agricultural Union and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. The Competition Board also made a recommendation in this regard, but it made no recommendations concerning restrictions on the number of retail outlets one person was allowed to control. The KWV and the other abovementioned institutions differ markedly from the Competition Board on this point as a result of the concentration of power which would inevitably arise in the retail trade. Similarly, the Government’s standpoint in this regard was stated very clearly by the hon. the Minister in his statement on 25 March—

All this was stated in the hon. the Minister’s Press statement. The KWV understands and appreciates this standpoint of the Government. However, the wine farmers are disappointed that a total separation between the wholesale and retail trades cannot become a reality. The KWV greatly appreciates the Government having granted the CWD 300 outlets whereby the status quo of 1979 is being restored, but the wine farmer and the KWV will continue to strive to make an unrestricted retail liquor trade a reality. The Government’s decision in respect of this separation was therefore once again inevitable, due to the Government’s standpoint of maintaining vested rights. In contrast, the 300 outlets granted to the CWD were equally inevitable if the status quo of 1979 was to be restored. Therefore the conclusion any reasonable person has to arrive at, is that the Government’s decisions with regard to the liquor trade are quite natural and practicable.

At this juncture I wish to deal with an accusation levelled at the Government, as well as indirectly at the wine industry earlier this afternoon. That is that the Government has granted licences to its supporters and that the CWD is allowed to have 300 outlets, whereas S.A. Breweries has to sell its outlets. I shall deal with the latter accusation first. S.A. Breweries has a 100% monopoly of its products in the market-place. Therefore there can be no question about the fact that it has to protect its products in the retail trade through tied retail outlets. Moreover, new people entering the beer market are unable to obtain any retail outlets. Therefore there can be no question of any protection for beer wholesalers in a tied retail trade in future.

The allegation that the Government only grants retail outlets to its supporters, is so ridiculous that one does not even wish to react to it. By the way, allow me to put this question: Is S.A. Breweries, with a 30% share in CWD, an outspoken supporter of the Government?

I wish to conclude with a few final remarks. The official Opposition continually attacks the CWD as being a monopoly which is not in the public interests, but they never say a word about the 100% beer monopoly. The second point I wish to make, is that the wine industry at the packaging level is surrounded by cartels and monopolies but the official Opposition never says a word about that. For the sake of clarity, I should like to state the Government’s standpoint, as set out in the statement after the establishment of the CWD, the Government’s standpoint on monopolies. I quote from that statement—

Therefore it is clear that the Government is not against the concentration of power as such, but against the abuse of power to the detriment of the producer.

I just wish to make two further remarks. The say of the wine farmer in the marketing of his products through his having a share in the CWD, is presented by the Official Opposition as being a mortal sin. However, in the other agricultural industries, producers may proceed unhindered in having a share in the marketing of their products, so as to ensure a greater measure of stability in their activities and industries.

What is the underlying reason for these discrepancies? Is it a lack of background information on the wine industry, or is it a complete negation of the wine farmer’s interests and the stability of the wine industry? In conclusion, I wish to assure the consumer that the wine farmer’s say in the CWD ensures that wine products will always be offered at realistic prices, since the wine farmer knows and realizes that his stable continued existence depends on the understanding of a well-disposed consumer sector. I take pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ceres has this afternoon clearly spoken as a wine producer, and he admitted as much. He has taken this opportunity to try to justify the Cabinet’s decision taken some time ago to so order the wine, liquor and beer industries as to ensure that certain large groups are locked into an almost permanent advantage over the smaller retailers and smaller groups. I think it is very unfortunate that the hon. member chose the debate on this measure to make that statement, because so far in this debate hon. members have been saying how pleased they are to see that this particular Act is being strengthened as a result of the measure before us. It is especially unfortunate coming after the criticism that has already been levelled at the hon. the Minister when the previous Bill was debated here this afternoon. One thing is certain and I want to put this to the hon. member—and that is that certain of the smaller retail sellers of liquor, etc., are now being prohibited by the decision of the Cabinet from expanding their operations. That is bad because one may find amongst those people really good entrepreneurs who deserve to be allowed in the spirit of the free market system, to expand, but the hon. the Minister has decided to put a ceiling on this operations while at the same time allowing a few retail giants to dominate the market.

The hon. member said that we get our wines at realistic prices. I just want to issue a warning to the hon. member. I was speaking to someone from overseas just recently who spent quite a lot of time in this country, and I can say that South African wines today in South Africa are not a cheap as we think they are. In other parts of the world one can get wines as good as South African wines at a cheaper price.

No ways!

The hon. member says “No ways”. Let us not kid ourselves. Let us not try to bluff the public. The price of wine in South Africa today is far higher than it should be. That hon. member as a producer should ask himself the reason why.

I was pleased to see that there is a growing consensus among political parties that the free market system is an economic system that must be promoted in South Africa, a system that allows the individual to develop himself and his business and to provide for his family. It is this human quality, what I call a fire in the belly of man, that turns him into a productive machine and that generates the wealth which a nation, especially one such as ours, a growing nation, requires in order to be able to provide a suitable future for all our people.

I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Innesdal say that today there are hundreds of Afrikaans-and English-speaking students just leaving school who know nothing about the economic system in which we live. I agree with him that this is a great pity. I want to tell the hon. member that I am even more concerned about the tens of thousands of Brown and Black children leaving school who have absolutely no idea what the economy is all about. I want to tell the hon. member that I recently spoke to the hon. the Minister of Education and Training about this. I said to him that I believed that, not only for our White education, but also for all education in South Africa, we should at some stage of the educational process introduce a course that explains to young people in very simple terms what economics is all about. I regret to say that there are many people who believe that the entrepreneur or the businessman just drives his motor car up to the bank, lifts the lid of the boot open and has the cash loaded in. They believe that that is the way he gets his money. Too few people realize that real wealth is generated through hard work, good business principles and practices and a commitment to the work ethic and to the free enterprise system. I believe that especially our Black and Brown people of today should be told about what makes a man wealthy, and what makes a nation wealthy. They must also be told that the economic system in South Africa has avenues open to them, which will enable them too to enjoy the fruits of hard work and worth-while efforts.

It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I am very pleased to hear the hon. member for Innesdal comment in the way he has just done because probably at no other time in our economic history has the need been as great as it is today to have the people understand what makes a country wealthy; to have people who are prepared to work towards the objective. The hon. member for Walmer said there were great quantities of money flowing into the country, and that this tended to increase the chances of monopolies being created or of big companies taking over other smaller ones, and that this was not necessarily good for the economy as a whole. I am inclined to agree with him. I often feel that when South Africa experiences a windfall profit—if I may use that term—as a result of a high gold price or a high price for certain of our minerals, and when money floods into South Africa as it did a few years ago when the gold price shot through the ceiling, it is a pity that some of this money could not be diverted more effectively into financial institutions and be made available to more of our smaller businessmen, to more entrepreneurs, in order to enable them to build up their businesses and thereby create more effective competition. Unfortunately, it appears as if these windfall profits force the large mining corporations, which already have a lot of money on their hands, to look around for somewhere to invest these huge sums and they often end up buying out their opposition, or they even go into fields into which they should not really venture because of their lack of expertise in those fields.

A case in point, Mr. Speaker, is the sugar farms in northern Zululand, which were bought out by a huge mining corporation two or three years ago. Something like 20 to 25 farms were bought out, and those farms have now been replaced by managers. As a result of that, I believe, the country has suffered. First of all the price paid for those farms was far too high, and that has caused the prices of farms to become totally inflated and uneconomic. Secondly, we no longer have the owner operating and living on the farm; somebody who will look after that asset far better than would a manager. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe the suggestion about the money flowing into the country being invested wisely is a very good one.

As the hon. the Minister has said, this Bill is essentially one that effects technical amendments and adjustments to the existing Act, and we support it. In clause 5, however, there is one new stipulation which states that the board may at any time, either before or after it is or was laid upon the Table of the House of Assembly, have its report published by the Minister in the Government Gazette, or that it be made known by the Minister in any other manner which the Minister may deem expedient. I think that is a very good stipulation. I believe we should not limit the Minister to waiting until the report has been tabled in the House. One thing, however, which does concern us in the NRP is that there could be reports which the hon. the Minister has obtained from the board as a result of its investigations, and that such reports are not being made public. Some weeks ago, the hon. member for King William’s Town tabled a question asking the Minister how many investigations had been undertaken and how many reports had been tabled or published. The hon. the Minister, in reply to those questions, said there had been 293 investigations, but apart from the findings contained in the board’s reports Nos. 1 to 10 which had been tabled in Parliament, the other findings had not been divulged because of their confidential nature. I wonder what information is so confidential that it should cause the hon. the Minister not to release those reports.

We in these benches do not believe that the hon. the Minister should divulge particulars concerning all the confidential aspects of the businesses the board has investigated, but I do believe that if the Competition Board has investigated a particular industry and has found that there is no need for the hon. the Minister to take any action, that report at least state that such-and-such has been investigated and what the findings are. The details of the investigation and its general findings, and not the confidential aspects, should be known. Therefore I should like the hon. the Minister, if possible, to comment on that.

As I have already intimated, we will be supporting this Bill, and we do welcome it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support of this legislation. The objective of the legislation is to enable the Competition Board to carry out its activities better and in addition, as the specific clause to which various hon. members referred contemplates, to enable the board to perform its task better in connection with take-overs and amalgamations.

Because various hon. members referred to the extensive work done by the board, and since there has also been general consensus that the board deserves support, and that the board has to be assisted in its task, I should also like to say a few words about the board’s activities. In the first place, the board’s third annual report has already been made available to hon. members. I should therefore like to request hon. members to read this report, because various matters cropped up here this afternoon to which reference is made in the annual report. In the discussion of my Vote, too, we shall probably be able to debate matters concerning the board.

†The hon. member for Walmer referred to the question of price control and the removal of price control. He also explained why it was important to move away from price control as far as possible.

*I agree with the hon. member. Recently the board completed various investigations into commodities that are subject to price control and 20 of these investigations have already been completed. Price control has been lifted in respect of a large number of commodities. The hon. member pointed out how price increases in terms of price control could break down consumer resistance and simply lead to the consumer accepting the prices as authoritative, and explained that this is not conducive to healthy competition. The fact is that in a free market system price is an important indication as to whether or not one should invest in a specific sector of industry. People are so inclined to believe that if the Government controls a commodity’s price, the price will not rise unduly, or that it will not rise at all. Even the prices of commodities subject to price control have to rise, however, because the manufacturer is faced with unavoidable cost increases, which in many cases are beyond his control. Increases in the price of electricity, raw materials and transport are but a few of the cost increases which lead to prices of controlled products having to rise. If price control is applied too rigidly it can result in the profit margin of products subject to control being inadequate, and this discourages further investment in that industry. Frequently the result of price control is that rationalization takes place over the years by way of amalgamations and take-overs, and eventually longterm price control can contribute to further formation of powerful interests in a specific industrial sector. That is why it is important for us in this case as well to bring home to the consumer the importance of healthy competition and the benefits this has for him. In the long run there is no other mechanism that determines the price for the consumer as well as a competitive market does. Arbitrary administrative control is never sufficient to determine prices properly.

The hon. member again referred to the recommendations of the Competition Board of which the Government accepted the minority recommendation. I should like to ask the hon. member at least to see this matter in its correct perspective. The board made various recommendations to the Government—following upon formal as well as informal investigations—and the Government accepted the vast majority of these. Of the reports already tabled, the report on the liquor industry is the only report in which the Government deviated from the recommendations of the Competition Board.

In that case I clearly indicated that on the basis of competition there was a great deal of merit in the recommendations of the Competition Board. However, there were other factors as well—the hon. member for Ceres mentioned these a moment ago—which the Government had to take into account. I have referred to them before and I do not want to go into the matter again. There were other factors. The Government had to deal with a wider spectrum of information than merely the competition within a specific industry. Historic developments in an industrial sector cannot merely be swept aside and, as the hon. member for Ceres also emphasized, there are major differences of opinion within the liquor industry. There are conflicting interests. Over the years it has not been possible for the Government to find really satisfactory solutions for the industry, notwithstanding the fact that there have been various investigations, in consequence of which recommendations were made.

One final word on this aspect: Not one of the persons making representations concerning the recommendations of the Competition Board were in favour of the recommendations being accepted as they stood. The board obviously offered its recommendations as a package. Everyone addresses representations on the aspects that suit him, but pleads with the Government not to accept other recommendations. Eventually, in this conflict of expectations, of claims, of rights, the Government had to try to find a compromise which would be as satisfactory as possible. It is not ideal. The hon. member for Ceres said that the KWV was striving for eventual separation. I agree with the hon. member that it is not only the endeavour of the Government, the KWV and other interested parties, but of everyone in the liquor industry to bring about a more satisfactory situation in future. At the moment we have to accept that this decision will best serve the interests of all the groups at present. Let us live with it, let us each make the best of the opportunity which the present dispensation gives us. I believe that every participant, from the consumer to the primary producer, has in fact reason to be grateful for the opportunities being afforded them by this new dispensation, a dispensation which will probably bring greater stability and order than was the case in the past.

I thank the hon. member for Innesdal for his very good contribution. I appreciate the hon. member’s short, concise and neat summary of the Government’s standpoint on the private sector, competition and the economy as such. I also agree with him that the public should realize that when market forces are allowed to play their part in the competitive situation, it will be to the benefit of the public. The Competition Board is also making an effort to keep people informed. The members of the board and the chairman regularly address groups. Dr. Lamprechts, and the chairman, Dr. Mouton, frequently give lectures and reply to questions at universities. We are also trying as far as possible to bring home to the consumer organizations that if a competitive climate and situation is created, the consumer also derives the greatest benefit from it.

I agree with him that it is unfortunate that the man in the street is frequently ignorant of the ABC of economic laws and labours under the incorrect impression that if the Government interferes in the economy, this will improve his position. This is not true. If the Government is able to withdraw and allow the market forces to fulfil their proper function, this will definitely not only be to the eventual benefit of the economy, but also to the benefit of the consumer.

Of course there may be reasons for the Government to interfere, and the Competition Board is a good example of this. Where proper competition does not exist it is necessary for the Government to take steps to maintain the necessary equilibrium or to keep companies or groups who misuse their position in the market in check. That is why the legislation on competition in South Africa is aimed at the actions of companies, at the actions of groups in the business community. In other countries there is legisliation on competition which is aimed at the structure, whereas legislation in South Africa is aimed at the actions of specific groups. That is why the hon. member for Innesdal is quite right. The existence of a monopoly is not a bad thing per se. Nor is the Competition Board in a position to declare the existence of a monopoly as such to be invalid. The board has the authority, in terms of legislation, to scrutinize the behaviour of a monopoly and to ascertain whether the actions of a group are of such a nature that they restrict competition and are therefore not in the public interest. It is therefore possible that within the small, limited market which by South Africa offers there are larger groups and even monopolies in certain industries, particularly capital-intensive ones. But if it had not been for this investment, and even the existence of monopolies in certain industries, South Africa would not have grown and developed economically to the extent to which it has done. We therefore have to accept monopolies, not only as deficiency in the market, but also as a result of the limited structure of the South African market.

It is the task of the Competition Board to keep an eye on the actions of the participants in the market economy and to determine whether they are in the public interest. The main and most important criterion here is whether it is possible for new entrants to enter the market. If the actions of the existing groups in the economy are of such a nature that they limit new entrants, this is one of the principal reasons why the Competition Board should take action against it. In this case it is important to us that the board will constantly acquaint itself with the actions of companies. The proposed amendments to the Act are in fact aimed at enabling the board not only to react in cases where take-overs or mergers take place, but also to warn or to request certain industries to inform the board in advance of intended agreements or take-overs. We do not have a system of compulsory notification in South Africa. We would not be able to manage it either. If it was compulsory to give notice of all take-overs in South Africa, the Competition Board would not be able to deal with it. In industries where there is already a great degree of concentration and where take-overs, mergers and agreements may restrict competition, the board is now able, in advance, to order the relevant companies or industry to keep it informed. It is therefore able to perform a far better controlling function. It is also a fact that the board has already been consulted by many groups in advance regarding possible mergers or takeovers. Consequently the board is now able to take action in those cases as well.

In the few minutes I still have at my disposal I want to refer briefly to the hon. member for Langlaagte’s statement that it is very difficult to investigate cartels. This is true, but in this case the entry criterion is also important. As regards the industries about which he voiced his concern, I want to tell him that the dynamite industry has already been investigated. A report has been published and entry to the industry is now possible.

I also thank the hon. member for Ceres for his elucidation. This hon. member’s remarks should not be interpreted as expressing opposition to the S.A. Breweries. That was not the hon. member’s intention. He merely indicated that a monopoly per se was not wrong.

I should also like to thank other members. I shall reply in writing to any points in the speech of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that I have not dealt with.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.