Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to subsection (xxv) which reads—

1. (a) any human tissue, including any flesh, bone, organ, gland or body fluid, but excluding any blood or gamete; and
2. (b) any devise or object implanted before the death of any person by a medical practitioner or dentist into the body of such person.

When I read this definition the first time, I was slightly concerned that in the definition of human tissue, something which obviously is not tissue, is defined as being tissue. I spoke to officials who satisfied me with their explanation that for legal reasons, tissue can be defined in this definition. Now that I have read it, I think this is a very important definition because there is no doubt that in view of the development of medicine and the use of all the new devices in medicine, this definition must be in this Bill for present and future medical developments. Many implants have been done in human beings and a lot of people are walking because of the implant of artificial hips. Many other people are alive due to pacemakers which keep their hearts beating at a rate which could not be kept by their own heart. Human, animal and artificial valves are being transplanted. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if animal tissue is also included in this definition, because animal tissue is also being implanted into human beings and there seems to be no provision for animal tissue in this definition. Finally, I should like to tell this Committee that we should look at future developments in devices. Since last year we have read many reports of artificial hearts. At present, I think this is still something on the horizon but artificial hearts are something which is being worked on. I believe that modern man, who has put a human being on the moon, will one day be able to replace the human being’s heart with an artificial device. I think the definitions prove how much this Bill is necessary and how much it is needed to use the legal side to make it possible for medical science to develop. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister if animal tissue is included in this definition. It is not only valves that are being used, but also pericardium and dura mater as well as many other animal tissues. As far as I can see, animal tissue is not included in this definition.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer briefly to subsection (l)(viii), which deals with the definition of “donation”. This is an improved definition and if we are to make full use of the broadened definition, which is a good definition, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that with the progress made with transplants today, to make donations successful we need a public awareness campaign. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to assist in this public awareness campaign, particularly in regard to the Book of Life in which a donation is recorded and which is signed by a close member of the family. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can help press for separate driver’s licences which can have the donation recorded on the back of it. In the census to be undertaken in 1985, questions can be incorporated to ascertain this. Certain tissues can of course be stored in a bank, for instance cornea. Kidneys, however, can only be kept for 30 hours, as the hon. the Minister is well aware. In regard to kidney transplants, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that the supply of kidneys for transplantation is far less than that which is required in South Africa. As one only has 30 hours available, there is a need for proper donations to be made as soon as possible. As a result of this, we have hundreds of patients in South Africa who are on dialysis machines and patients are dialyzed two to three times a week. Apart from these patients, there are 500 new patients per year. It has been estimated that to keep one patient on a dialysis machine will cost R20 000 per year. For all the patients this amounts to approximately R1 million per year, whereas if this is done by means of transplants, the cost can be reduced after one year to R3 000 for the patient. In the circumstances, since we cannot have kidney banks where kidneys can be stored for use in transplants and since a new kidney can save a life and give new quality of life to a person, I want to urge the hon. the Minister to assist in a public awareness campaign in which the public should be informed of how a person can function on one kidney and how donations can be made.

Mr. Speaker, in consequence of the question asked by the hon. member for Parktown I want to say that as I interpret definition (xxv), the definition of “tissue”, it does not seem to me as if animal tissue is included here. Basically this is not aimed at regulating transplants but at preventing medical practitioners from causing problems for themselves, if they perform transplants in the course of their profession. The aim is basically therefore to protect bodies after death. That is why animal tissue is not included in the definition. It is not yet being done at this stage. However, I think that it may be possible to include it in the definition in future. If it seems necessary in the future, it can be done. To the best of my knowledge it is not necessary at this stage.

The hon. member for Hillbrow asked that the acquisition of donations be facilitated. I referred to this last night, and I repeat that this is a very sensitive matter. It also concerns the matter of educating the public. I feel every possibility has been created in this Bill for voluntary organizations to develop methods to obtain consent. In my opinion consent in a Book of Life, signed by a witness, would be adequate to proceed with the transplant. The hon. member or any organization is at liberty to work along these lines to obtain donations for this purpose. I have no objection to that and it does not seem to me to be necessary to make provision for this in the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain to the hon. the Minister what I meant by the idea that when a patient is admitted to a hospital, he is admitted as a potential donor. In the admittance form a patient has to complete at a hospital, provision should be made for a patient to be able to indicate that he does not wish to donate his body or any tissue. In his reply the hon. the Minister said that in that case that hospital would not get any patients. However, I feel that if this is law and applies to every hospital, one hospital will not benefit at the expense of another.

I was interested in the publicity which the discussion of this Bill has elicited during the past few days. I am aware that other very important matters were also discussed. However, if this Bill had been discussed in 1967, the newspapers and television would have given a great deal of coverage to it. Mr. Chairman, I now come to the clause, and I just want to say something about people who make donations and the way in which donations may be obtained. What, however, does the fact that this debate has hardly been reported at all in the news, signify? It signifies that John Citizen and the newspaper people are already quite used to transplants. It has become part of life and people are well aware that bodies and tissue may be donated. I wonder whether this idea of mine is really so far-fetched—the idea that it should be written into the legislation that a hospital should be allowed to have patients sign if they do not wish to donate their bodies except perhaps, if the hospital wants to “contract out”—if I may use the term. I would concede, perhaps, that the time may not yet be ripe for this, but I think we should begin to discuss it. I think the hon. the Minister should already begin considering this. It has already been indicated that donations of tissue and bodies are important, and the more used to the idea the public becomes, the less people will be opposed to it. It is not as though newspapers still think of this as front-page news. We in this House must constantly endeavour to increase the possibilities of having bodies and tissue made available. I am merely mentioning this to the hon. the Minister as an idea.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member asked me why these matters no longer attracted so much publicity. I should think the reason is that Dr. Barnard and Dr. Van der Merwe are no longer as important as they used to be! [Interjections.] Perhaps that is the real situation. I think another reason is that in the opinion of the newspapermen, other things are more important. I can assure the hon. member that if we had debated medical fees, we might have been front-page news. However, I shall not pursue the matter.

I am sympathetic towards the hon. member’s view on the obtaining of donations. I accept that this work has to continue, and what is important is that donations have to be obtained. However, one does not place a provision in an Act which compels a hospital to do this. The legislation already makes provision for this. If a hospital wants to do this, it is at liberty to alter its admittance forms accordingly. However, if it is a private hospital, the hospital will of course have to have its own form for this and if it is a provincial hospital, the hospital board and the provincial administration will of course have to give their approval. I do not think this Bill prohibits anything of this nature. If the hon. member is able to persuade a hospital to do this, it is his affair. Personally I feel that one has to be very careful, because this could well be counterproductive. One may get the opposite result from what one wanted. People are sensitive about this, and one therefore has to be careful. Accordingly I think it would be unwise to incorporate anything of this nature in legislation, because then one is immediately creating the possibility that agitation against this may be initiated throughout South Africa, and this is something which does not exist at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, let me just put a question to the hon. the Minister about specifying donations in a person’s will. I think all hon. members know that when a person dies, having made a will, it takes several days, if not weeks, before the will actually comes to light. Families are usually very sensitive and upset before the reading of the will, out of respect for the person who has passed away. So normally one does not discover, until the will is opened, that a donation has been made. By then it could probably be too late to make the donation. So I am wondering whether one cannot devise some scheme whereby people drawing up wills—usually attorneys draw up wills—cannot notify the donees of the fact that in such and such a will so and so has decided to donate certain organs or tissues. Otherwise nobody is aware of this fact until the will comes to light.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to differ slightly from what hon. members have said about this clause thus far. If one were to leave it to a hospital or institution to decide for itself what will appear in the form a patient has to complete when he is admitted, if hospitals may decide for themselves whether they want information from a patient regarding possible donations when he is admitted, this could really cause confusion. I suggest uniformity in this connection.

In pursuance of the further point raised here by the hon. member for Hillbrow, I want to say that I really think this is a matter which should be given very careful consideration. The question I ask myself is merely whether, in the form a patient has to complete when he is admitted to an approved institution, the question whether the patient has donated tissue or his body should be asked. I agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow that the death may occur over a long weekend, and that the will of the relevant person may be deposited in a bank or at an attorneys’ firm so that this fact only comes to light after the relevant person has already been buried. I think this is a possibility which ought to be considered.

Mr. Chairman, I repeat that I am sympathetically disposed to what both hon. members have said. However, it is not our task to state in legislation how a person should make known the contents of his will. If a person decides to donate tissue or his body to an institution and he specifies this in his will, I assume—I am convinced of this—that he will in any case inform the relevant people of his decision. After all, he will realize that if he does not do so there is a possibility that he may be buried before his will is read. I therefore think it is natural that the person who makes such a donation will inform the relevant organizations of his decision so that they will know in advance. I do not think one need incorporate this in an Act.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, the question of signatures being required to confirm the moment of death was discussed in detail yesterday and I do not want to elaborate on that. I just think it should be emphasized that the two doctors concerned, one of whom must have qualified at least five years, are two doctors totally separate from the transplant team. That was not emphasized during the Second Reading debate. These two doctors have nothing to do with the transplant itself. There is a practical problem involved here. They are not always as keen to get up in the middle of the night as the transplant team who want to get on with the operation. I have thought about how this could be changed to make things easier in practice. Unfortunately, I think that this requirement cannot be altered, because the public must have confidence. I would like to say that some of the public has the idea that the transplant team sits around with knives in their hands ready to do transplant operations. The fact is that the transplant team is as concerned to save the life of a possible donor as it is to save the life of the recipient. Medical ethics is to save lives, not to take lives. Therefore the transplant team would first of all like to save the patient if possible, but they can have no part in the signing of the death certificate by certifying that a patient has irreversible brain damage, because that will arouse suspicion.

I should also just like to mention to the hon. the Minister that I think that this is a very good clause and it is a clause that we should deal with in greater detail so that the public can have the confidence that doctors are at all times acting ethically and morally correctly.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I listened yesterday to the hon. the Minister’s explanation of clause 16, and also to his explanation of a later clause with the same purport. I accept his explanation fully. I think it is reasonable.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I dealt with the question of these people who perform artificial insemination, whether they be ordinary general practitioners or specialist gynaecologists. I think in the case of ordinary, straightforward AID it can be done by a medical practitioner, but I think in vitro fertilization is somewhat more complicated and should be reserved for an institution or a place where it can be carried out with a highly technical laboratory next to it. I do believe that where doctors are carrying out AID in accordance with the code of practice, there should be some form of recognition of where it is done so that proper control can be kept over it. Particularly if the creation of semen banks is going to be allowed, it becomes even more important that there should be some control and some recognition of where everything is and that proper records are kept.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 19:

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

I believe that being a habitual criminal is also a mental illness. I believe that for the protection of the child as well as for the family involved, as we do not really know what can be passed on, there is merit in this amendment, and would like to know therefore whether the hon. the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Chairman, as I said during the Second Reading debate, medicine is a science. If one “believes”; in medicine it is good, but I do not think that proves a point. To say that being a habitual criminal is a mental illness, as the hon. member for South Coast has done, is not in my opinion of any importance and to use the argument as a reason for excluding them, is totally unacceptable. Quite often habitual criminals are very intelligent and well-developed people. Therefore to disqualify them because they might have a mental illness is not justified. Clause 19 already refers to “a person who is mentally ill”, not to habitual criminals. I do not have very strong feelings about this, but I cannot accept the hon. member’s explanation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer specifically to clause 19(c). During the Second Reading debate yesterday I had problems in connection with this clause, problems which I brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I then also listened to his reply. In spite of this I do want it placed on record that, like the hon. member for Brits, I still have such serious religious or theological and ethical objections to this measure that I have no alternative but to raise it here again.

My objection is that the measures provide that the gamete of a donor—thus the gamete of a third person—may be used for artificial fertilization within wedlock; in other words, that it is brought into the marriage from outside. Because I believe that marriage is a monogamous institution, a bond in which one man is bound in matrimony to one woman, and that the gamete of an outside donor assails this situation in a religious, theological and ethical sense, I simply cannot approve of this.

Having made this statement, however, I want to add that I fully understand the problem facing the hon. the Minister. I also fully understand the position of the medical practitioners, and particularly those persons undertaking medical research in this connection. Therefore, the fact that I object to this clause in no way detracts from the understanding I have for the medical view in this connection. I do not intend to move an amendment to this clause. However, I want my objection and that of my party to this clause to be recorded.

Mr. Chairman, in respect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for South Coast, let met say that I do not like to be drawin into the argument between the hon. member and the hon. member for Parktown. Whether an habitual criminal is suffering from a mental disease or not is, I believe, quite irrelevant. Regardless of what the hon. member says, however, I am still of the belief that the amendment he has moved is a meritorious one, and as such I am prepared to accept it.

*Mr. Chairman, as far as the hon. member for Koedoespoort is concerned, I want to express my appreciation for his standpoint. As a matter of fact I have already told him so. If I had been of the opinion that this legislation imposed obligations on the people concerned which prevented him from upholding his own moral standards and those of his church, I would definitely not have proceeded with this. In this respect the hon. member for Koedoespoort and I share the same sentiments. As a matter of fact, the hon. member indicated this clearly yesterday, too, and there are other hon. members who feel exactly the same way.

On the other hand, however, Mr. Chairman, the reality is that this legislation ensures that people are not committing an offence if they behave in a certain way. This is all this legislation does. Everyone is still able to live with his own conscience.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Conservative Party dissenting).

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, this clause makes it possible the code of practice to become a legal document, and I think we all welcome that. Those of us who have read the document, appreciate its contents and the medical profession as such is also very much in favour of it.

Mr. Chairman, the code of practice to which the hon. member has just referred will be written into the regulations. It is only at that stage that it will become a legal document. All hon. members or anybody else who wishes to do so must feel free to make whatever representations they wish to make if they are in any way dissatisfied in regard to the way in which this is to be done. Of course, the regulations will be published.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring the following to the attention of the hon. the Minister in connection with this clause. In this AID booklets, provision is made at the top of page 6 for the wishes of the married couple in connection with the population group and religious denomination to be taken into account. However, this only concerns their wish. On page 8, provision is in fact made for the population group, the religion, etc, to be indicated in the records. As the hon. the Minister has said, however, this document is not actually an official document and it therefore has to be written into the regulations. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to please ensure that the provisions in connection with these donors’ records mentioned on page 8 are also included in the regulations so that provision will in fact be made for these matters.

Mr. Chairman, we shall draft the regulations and the hon. member is at liberty to address his representations to the department in connection with those regulations. Anyone is at liberty to do so. As far as I am concerned, the whole aim in this regard is to attempt to make the donor as compatible as is humanly possible with the spouse of the married woman. There must therefore really be a correspondence. This is what we have to endeavour to do. But we shall in any case consider all these regulations.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26:

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

1. 1. On page 20, in lines 15 and 16, to omit “dispose thereof in such manner as he may deem fit” and to substitute “destroy it”.
2. 2. On page 20, in line 17, to omit “disposed of” and to substitute “destroyed”.
3. 3. On page 20, in line 20, to omit “disposal” and to substitute “destruction”.

While I have the greatest confidence in the officials, I simply believe that the expression “disposed of” is not emphatic enough. One has to take into consideration the fact that the Director-General lays down certain provisions and conditions under which tissue can be imported and, if such tissue does not comply with those conditions and he instructs the importer to return them and the importer does not do so, he has the power to seize such tissue and dispose of it. As I have said, I believe that the expression “disposed of” is not emphatic enough and I would prefer the word “destroyed” to be used. That is the reason for my amendments.

Mr. Chairman, again as in the case of the previous amendment, I do not have strong feelings in so far as these amendments are concerned. I feel, however, that as the clause stands at the moment it is acceptable to me. I do not know whether the hon. member for South Coast realizes that some of the blood products imported are very expensive. Just to destroy them, I think will actually be a waste. I think the Director-General should have the choice to inquire whether some laboratory could make use of such products. Products such as thrombokinase, fibrinogen and albumen can be imported, but to destroy them would serve no purpose especially in view of today’s cost of living. I wonder if the hon. member is really serious to expect that valuable products which can be worth thousands of rands should be destroyed. The Director-General should have the discretion to allow these products to be used in a laboratory or even for therapeutic purposes at a mission station. I really believe that it is not necessary merely to destroy them. I have confidence in the Director-General and his officials to decide. If, for instance, semen is imported, then I could go along with the hon. member. The year before last I was in Vienna where I saw the processing of blood products and other products. I cannot accept that destroying such products willy-nilly is to the advantage of medicine.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown has raised the very issue which worries me. He wants to know why, if tissue is imported and it does not comply with the conditions prescribed, such tissue should not be used for therapeutic purposes. That is my whole point. I believe that if it does not comply with conditions set down by the Director-General, then, if the importer is not prepared to send it back, it should be destroyed in order to retain the confidence of the public. There should be no ambiguity attached to the word “disposal”. This is why I have moved the amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with what the hon. member for South Coast has just said, and in particular with his motivation. By means of subsection (2) we are in fact giving the Director-General the opportunity to look at such items. In a case where such a product is not returned to the country of origin and the receiver fails to deal with it as prescribed, better control over the entire situation is now possible. Particularly with a view to research I believe that we shall be giving the Director-General or the relevant research institute the opportunity to be able to study such a product very closely, as it were with a magnifying glass. I think that the clause so far from leading to less control, improves the situation.

Mr. Chairman, I gave my serious attention to the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast. I can understand what is going on in his mind. He must understand that this does not only concern gametes. It also concerns blood and blood products. It may happen that certain of the blood products that people have imported without a permit may be very valuable. It would then be extremely foolish to confiscate those items and throw them away. The fact remains that the clause provides that the Director-General is in any case in a position to issue a post facto permit to these people, as the hon. member for Brits also spelt out. I personally think that what the hon. member wants to achieve by means of his proposal is already being effectively achieved with the clause as it stands, without binding the Director-General, so that valuable articles which may not be correct according to the regulations, may nevertheless be checked and used. I should appreciate it if the hon. member would withdraw the amendment.

I bow to the superior knowledge of the medical fraternity and with the leave of the Committee should like to withdraw my amendment.

Amendments, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34:

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

Clause 34 provides, inter alia, that any person who, except in so far as it may be permitted by or under any other law, acquires, uses or supplies a body of a deceased person or any tissue, blood or gamete of a living or deceased person in any other manner or for any other purpose than that permitted by this Act, and effects an artificial insemination contrary to the provisions of section 22, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding R1 000. I believe the fine is not sufficient to be a deterrent. If one also takes inflation into consideration, R1 000 is not very much, and will not deter anyone from committing an offence under this clause. I would have liked it to be more, but I had discussions with officials who said that R2 000 would be better than the amount I had in mind. Therefore, I would like to move the amendment as printed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is in a fighting mood this morning and I am not. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister accepts the higher fine, but I am afraid we cannot support it. If he wants to relate the fine to that specific offence, he may have a point. If the fine is however, related to a person who refuses or fails to answer to the best of his knowledge any question which any person has in the performance of his functions in terms of this Act put to him …

That is the maximum, you know that.

Firstly, in principle I think one does not want higher penalties. Our jails are full enough and our fines are high enough in most legislation. Quite frankly, we do not have to increase the fine. Secondly, failing or refusing to answer a question is not such a serious offence that it should carry a fine of R2 000 or imprisonment of one year. We cannot support that amendment.

Amendment agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37:

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

This amendment differs from the one on the Order Paper in that the word “and” has been omitted and substituted by “or”. Subsection (4) reads as follows—

I believe paragraph (1) should fall in this category as well, and this is the reason for my moving the amendment to insert “or (1)”.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment a few nights ago, when this Bill was under discussion, I made a few statements that I should like to repeat in order to refresh hon. members’ memories. I stated, firstly, that the principle of toll roads, or the introduction of toll financing for the construction of national roads, was a matter of unanimity in the Select Committee. The second statement I made was that the declaring of toll roads would be subject to certain conditions. I am also of the opinion that that was unanimously accepted by the Select Committee. That is why I stated, thirdly, that it surprised me that the official Opposition was opposing the Second Reading of the Bill at this stage. The reason they advance is that the declaring of certain roads to be toll roads must first be approved by Parliament before the National Transport Commission can take further steps. I also adopted the standpoint of believing that the objection that the official Opposition subsequently came to light with was not of such a nature as to necessitate consequent opposition to the Second Reading. They could just as well have done it by way of an amendment in the Committee Stage. I believe the hon. the Minister would have viewed this sympathetically. I also just want to say briefly that this Bill makes provision for the National Transport Commission declaring certain roads, bridges, etc., to be toll roads or bridges. There are, however, certain restrictions attached to this which are, in my opinion, of the utmost importance. In my view the most important restriction is the fact that the National Transport Commission cannot declare any road to be a toll road unless there is an alternative route along which one can reach one’s destination. As far as I am concerned, it is important that the Bill also makes provision for the fact that in such a case the National Transport Commission itself must provide the alternative road, or make use of a decent road provided by another body such as the province. What is involved here, is therefore not the mere fact of the National Transport Commission simply declaring a road to be a toll road and then regarding simply any other possible track—for example that made by a horse and cart—as an alternative route along which one could reach one’s destination. The Bill makes due provision for the fact that this alternative route must be a decent road along which the driver of a motor car, a bus or whatever the case may be, can reach his destination. I believe this condition to be very important, and I believe also that it will have a very limiting influence on the declaring of toll roads.

There is another matter that I also believe to be very important. The National Transport Commission can revoke the toll status of any road or bridge declared to be a toll road or bridge. It is, however, also extremely important that a road or bridge cannot simply be declared to be a toll road or bridge. Administrative provision must be made for this, the necessary space must be incorporated, etc., so that the toll facilities can indeed function properly. It does, of course, cost a great deal of money to make provision for this, and this is a further limiting factor when it comes to declaring toll roads. I say this, because what it means is that the National Transport Commission will also have to have the necessary funds to make the necessary provision for this before one could actually use a road as a toll road. The fact that it would cost a great deal of money would, in my opinion, definitely be a factor restricting the summary or capricious declaring of roads or bridges to be toll roads or bridges. These costs will probably have to be duly borne in mind and the Commission will have to satisfy itself that the costs incurred—actually millions of rand—would really be worthwhile and that such costs could be recovered from the toll fees levied.

I am convinced of the fact that this measure will indeed enable the National Transport Commission to get hold of a few million rand which could then usefully be employed for funding national roads, and in particular for the maintenance of roads damaged by heavy vehicles.

It is therefore a great pleasure for me, on behalf of this side of the House, to lend my support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with this measure on behalf of the hon. member for South Coast because he has commitments in his constituency and has had to leave. He has asked me to express his appreciation to the Chairman of the Select Committee, to all the gentlemen who served on that committee and to the officials who served that committee. I can well understand his appreciation of the chairman, the hon. member for Kempton Park, because I have known that gentleman during all the years I have been in the House. I know him to be a very peace-loving and patient sort of person and I understand that under his chairmanship the work of the Select Committee went very smoothly indeed.

The introduction of road tolls goes only part of the way towards solving the problem. It offers only partial relief. There is no shadow of doubt that there is a serious shortage of funds generally for the construction of national roads throughout South Africa. It is my understanding that there was an abundance of evidence before the Select Committee in support of this contention. So it would appear that this is in fact so. It is also obvious to me that insufficient attention has been paid over the years to the requirements of our developing country in respect of its national road network. I do not think that we have kept pace with this burgeoning land of ours.

I want to say that we do not consider the concept of road tolls as being in any way repugnant. We believe that it confirms the principle that the user should pay for the facility that is provided for him. We suggest, in fact, that the user will gain because, on the basis of the suggested tariff to be imposed at the toll point, he is only going to pay approximately 50% of what he will actually be saving by using the toll road, and that 50% is a saving that will accrue to him if one takes only the cost of fuel into consideration. We should also consider the saving on the wear and tear of his vehicle, which, I believe, is an aspect many critics of road tolls choose to ignore.

Let us have a look at the Garden Route bridges, the Bloukrans, the Groot and the Bobbejaans Bridges. A passenger vehicle using the three bridges instead of going through the old, well-worn and much-loved passes is going to save approximately 8 literes of fuel and, say, 30 minutes to 45 minutes in time. A heavy vehicle will save as much as 48 literes to 50 literes of fuel and in excess of one hour in time, precious time to a man moving goods in heavy vehicles on our roads.

Ten tons of toilet tissue.

Perhaps. A very positive aspect of this Bill is the fact that there must at all times be an alternative road to the toll road. That proves that this hon. Minister listens to the NRP, because the traveller is given local option in that he can choose his route. I believe that the argument will rage both for and against toll roads for a long time to come. I think this argument will rage because the concept is one that is entirely foreign to our way of life. Travellers in the Far East, in the USA and elsewhere accept it as a matter of course that one has to pass through a series of toll gates on the world’s finest highways, and even on some of its by-ways, to reach one’s destination. I venture to suggest that in a very short space of time the South African motorist will come to accept this new system. I think he will not only come to accept it, but he will also come to realize that he is effecting tremendous savings by making use of the facilities offered. I repeat: The beauty is that the alternative route is always available for those die-hards who will never subscribe to this point of view.

I think the last Easter weekend will live on in our memories because of the appalling number of accidents and the loss of life that occurred. While waiting to speak on this measure, I happened to glance at today’s Financial Mail. There is a report in it dealing with the latest unpublished figures of the National Institute for Transport and Roads Research, and that report tells us that there were 1 075 accidents on South African roads every day during 1982. It tells us that the cost to the country of accidents on our roads is R5,2 million per day. It tells us that the total cost to the country in 1980 was R1 261 million; in 1981, R1 450 million while in 1982 it reached the staggering figure of R1 770 million. This was the cost of accidents to our country. The contributory factors to these accidents are many fold. Always we think, firstly, of driving under the influence and of reckless driving. However, I submit that the most dangerous of all is undisciplined behaviour on the part of motorists without due regard to safety.

Irresponsibility.

Irresponsible driving, as the hon. member for Durban North has just said: That to me is the greatest danger, the lack of discipline that we see every day on our way home on the Nl. There are streams of motorists who seem to believe that the passing lane is on the left and the slow lane is over on the right. But our roads are also to blame in that they cannot cope with the volume of traffic. Although I grant that the Easter weekend was an extreme situation, we must seek to cater for the extremes as well. I sincerely hope that this new system of financing will accelerate the development of road projects and road construction in order to alleviate what could develop into a crisis situation in the next ten years. We sincerely believe that the whole aspect of national road financing needs revision, but unfortunately it is not within the scope of this Bill to discuss that. There is no shadow of doubt, however, that the failure to increase allocations of money immediately can only lead to further tragedies such as the tragedy we experienced last Easter.

I should now like to turn my attention to the submissions that were made by the hon. member for Berea. The hon. member made a very interesting speech. As a result he has been described in the Press as “Somersault Swart”. But I do not believe that that is good enough at all, and I want to illustrate why I say it. I studied the hon. member’s Second Reading speech and I should like to quote from it. He was explaining what it was that led him to doing this somersault that he is accused of making. He said (Hansard, 3 May 1983)—

We remember that well. The hon. member went on to say—

At that point everybody seemed to start making a noise because the Hansard record says that there were interjections. However, the hon. member went on to say—

I presume I am correct—in saying that these are the circumstances that have changed that caused him to perform his acrobatic manoeuvre. What happened during the discussion of the first National Roads Amendment Bill? Is the hon. member listening to me?

I am listening to you.

Sir, I am asking him whether that is what caused him to change his mind. According to his Hansard he said that the circumstances I have quoted caused him to change. During his speech the hon. member spoke about the Government having carte blanche for this and carte blanche for that and during the Second Reading of the earlier Bill he referred to the Government having carte blanche in imposing a levy. Oh, how he loves the expression “carte blanche”. You know, Mr. Speaker, I believe that in this country of ours we should really have a “carte Schwarz” too. Be that it as it may, the hon. member for Berea vigorously opposed that First National Roads Amendment Bill as well. He referred to this, as I say, in his Second Reading speech. When did he oppose the first National Roads Amendment Bill?

After they had had a fight in their caucus. [Interjections.]

No, Sir. He opposed it on 14 February 1983. I should like the hon. the Minister to listen to me. The hon. member for Berea opposed that measure. We opposed it as well, on 14 February 1983. That was when we opposed it. Then, two days later, on 16 February 1983, we opposed clause 1 of that Bill. The official Opposition also opposed clause 1 of that same Bill then. That was 16 February 1983. Then, like the PFP, we recorded our objection to the Third Reading, which was one week later, on Wednesday, 23 February 1983.

Because I believe that we have to go into this matter thoroughly, I even established that that particular Bill was signed by the State President and became law on 9 March 1983. On 9 March 1983 it was gazetted, it became a law of this country, an Act of this Parliament.

It is also interesting, Sir, to note that the day after that Bill became law the members of the Select Committee were granted leave of absence from this House—that was on 10 March 1983—so that they could visit the bridges across the Bobbejaans, the Blou-krans and the Groot Rivers. Now, Mr. Speaker, what happened 44 days after the Second Reading of that Bill? What happened 42 days after the Committee Stage? What happened 35 days after the Third Reading? Note, Sir, 35 days after the Third Reading. You know, Mr. Speaker, I believe an egg can hatch in 17 days. We could have had two separate hatchings from the same egg in those 35 days. [Interjections.] What happened, Sir? What happened all those days afterwards? Let me tell you, Sir, what happened.

It takes a long time to become a “vrot eier”.

Yes, it does indeed. It takes a long time. However, I also want to take my time over this matter. [Interjections.] 35 days later, Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, 30 March 1983, the Select Committee met under the chairmanship of Mr. G. C. du Plessis, with—and I shall read the names of those hon. gentlemen—Mr. J. J. Lloyd, Mr. G. J. Malherbe, Mr. A. Savage, Mr. R. A. F. Swart, Mr. H. J. Tempel, Mr. A. G. Thompson, Mr. A. Weeber and Dr. P. J. Welgemoed as members of that committee. They met, and they signed a document. It was resolved unanimously by every one of those gentlemen; all these many days after that Bill was passed it was resolved, and I quote—

And further, Sir …

So what?

So what? See, Sir, that is the reaction of the hon. member for Berea to this. So what? [Interjections.] Further, Sir, the chairman of the Select Committee submitted a draft Bill entitled the Second National Roads Amendment Bill, which was considered and unanimously agreed to. Would the hon. member for Berea like to say “so what?” again? [Interjections.] I ask him, Mr. Speaker. I am quite surprised, Sir. I have not heard another “so what?” yet. I am flummoxed. [Interjections.] I am bewildered, Sir, because it was agreed to by all of these gentlemen. Afterwards the chairman submitted a draft report, which was considered and adopted. For the record, Sir, the committee rose at 09hl5. [Interjections.]

All of what I have said now, Mr. Speaker, is in Hansard. It is in the Government Gazette. It is also in the Minutes of the Select Committee Report. Now, Sir, the hon. member for Berea comes to this House and says that it is the right of every party, at Second Reading, to deal with a matter in a specific way, if circumstances have changed. [Interjections.] He tells the House that the earlier legislation is what he was referring to as “the circumstances”. What was he doing for six weeks? Was he hatching two clutches of eggs? I do not believe his story and I do not think that anybody here believes his story. How can he expect anyone to believe it? To use his favourite expression, do he and his party think that they have carte blanche to try to kid this House? I know what happened because on the morning that the measure before us was debated, 3 May, I was given to understand that as this was an agreed measure all stages would be taken. That was my understanding in the morning. That is what I was told. I know as this came from Whips all the way round.

11 o’clock.

11 o’clock. Was that the time? Thank you. [Interjections.] I know where it happened. It all happened in the PFP caucus a few hours before the debate began. It happened between 11 o’clock and 2 o’clock. Sir, let me sketch the scenario because I know it so well. It lives with me. My colleague the hon. member for Amanzimtoti knows it too.

We have been through it all in the past.

This is a scenario that I know. I can just see a certain member standing up and saying: “Mr. Chairman, I must tell you that I have a problem.” [Interjections.] His next step would be to say that he would probably have to reconsider his position if the caucus did not see things his way. I love this one, Sir: Mr. Chairman, I may have to reconsider my position! [Interjections.] I cannot understand what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries is laughing at!

He has seen it happen before today too.

You know, Sir, while the hon. member for Berea was telling us all this and while we were boisterously interjecting, the hon. member for Groote Schuur, bless his boots, gave the entire game away. He could not help but shout out: Didn’t you have troubles in your caucus in 1975? [Interjections.]

I did not say that.

Well, we all heard it.

I said I knew your caucus in 1975. I do not like it any better now.

I thought the hon. member asked: “Did you not have troubles in your caucus in 1975?” Well, if he did not say that, then let me tell him that we did have troubles in our caucus in 1975. Of course we did. Do you know what our troubles were, Sir? They were the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Bryanston, the hon. member for Sandton, the hon. member for Hillbrow who was then a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North and the hon. member Prof. N. J. J. Olivier. All those problems are now over there. [Interjections.] They are all over there doing their thing all over again. [Interjections.]

Do you think you will get 1 000 votes in Waterkloof?

Mr. Chairman, that wind-bag can huff and puff as much as he likes!

†Mr. Chairman, I have enjoyed this speech, Sir. [Interjections.] I look forward to the explanation I am sure the hon. member for Walmer is going to give us. We shall support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I have always thought that when Afrikaans get stuck into one another, the sparks fly, but it seems to me that when the English have a go at one another, things are just as bad. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Umhlanga said that he enjoyed his speech. I assure him that we did, too. The hon. member was not a member of the committee, but in my opinion, he stuck remarkably closely to the report and the provisions of this legislation and I wish to congratulate him on that.

On behalf of other members of the Select Committee, I should like to apologize to the hon. members for Berea and Walmer. I really do not think they deserve what their caucus meted out to them. Who in this House will ever again be able to accept the word of the hon. member for Berea—he is a front-bencher—and the hon. member for Walmer? Not only is the word of two hon. members of this House being called in question, but their signatures as well. They signed for a Bill they believed in.

Let us examine the background to what took place here. What was the reason for appointing the Select Committee? The reason is set out in the report of the Select Committee, in the words of Mr. Mitchell, who gave evidence before the committee. He furnished the reason in reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Berea. He said—

He went on to say—

Later he said—

†What was the question the hon. member put? This was what he said at one of the first meetings we had—

That is a fact. The principle of toll in South Africa is a new principle, like the new constitution from which some people are also running away. The hon. member for Berea said further—

*That was the question put by the hon. member for Berea. I think that is true; it was a new field for all of us.

What happened next? I shall tell you what happened. We sat from 25 March 1982 to 30 March 1983. It took us a year and five days to draft the Bill. It was no hit-and-run method we used. Who gave evidence? The hon. member for Berea was not present at all the meetings. He did not attend two of the meetings. The hon. member for Walmer also failed to attend two of the meetings. That is not all—there were some of the meetings which I did not attend either. [Interjections.] This House should take cognizance of who the people were who gave evidence before the Select Committee as experts so that we could arrive at the decision we did arrive at. They were Drs. Botha, Burton and De Loor, Prof. De Vos, Mr. Mitchell, Dr. Mullins and the late Mr. K. R. Pretorius. The hon. member for Yeoville knew the late Mr. Pretorius very well and I think the hon. member had a great deal of respect for him. He often worked with the late Mr. Pretorius in the Select Committee on Public Accounts. From whom did we receive submissions? We received submissions from divisional councils, all the provincial councils, the Federated Chamber of Commerce, the Handelsinstituut, the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Institute of Civil Engineers, and others, all organizations involved in this. And they really made positive inputs. Those who thought that we should rather wait, gave their reasons. Those who thought we should implement this now, gave their reasons as well, and the hon. member for Berea is aware of that.

What is the point?

The point is that together with that hon. member and the hon. member for Walmer we mulled over this matter carefully to see how we could implement it, how we should go about it, whether there were any alternatives. We mulled over these matters carefully, and this year Parliament decided to reappoint the committee and to give it a further assignment, viz., to come forward with a draft Bill. The department was to submit draft legislation to the committee and the committee was to consider it. Surely the hon. member agrees with that. We shaped and reshaped it and eventually decided unanimously on the real McCoy. The hon. member for Berea said in his Second Reading speech that there was not really much enthusiasm for the Bill. Surely that is not true. I would say that at the outset members of the committee lacked detailed knowledge of these matters, but since then a number of members of the Select Committee have travelled overseas and there we kept our eyes open and made inquiries. What is more, with the approval of the Select Committee the department sent officials overseas to go and make inquiries and to make a study of this, and we were all grateful for the knowledge that was acquired.

The hon. member asked me what the point was. The point is that that hon. member and the hon. member for Walmer agreed with everything, but now they are boycotting it. Did they receive instructions to boycott this? Mr. Speaker, do you know what happened? It is a pity that the hon. member for Yeoville has now left the Chamber. On the morning of Tuesday 3 May, we held a meeting of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and at 12h00 that morning those hon. members excused themselves to go and attend an urgent caucus meeting. The PFP caucus destroyed within half an hour—those members were back in the dining-room at 12h30—what the Select Committee had achieved in a year and five days. That is a fact and I think it is a disgrace when one considers how the time and money of hon. members and Public Service officials have been wasted. A Select Committee is there to reach a consensus where possible, something the PFP is also always preaching about. Now one hon. member walks into their caucus—the hon. member for Yeoville will probably know who I am referring to—and destroys everything, for that is the way it works: Give in to Harry on this score, and in turn, he will give in when it comes to discussions on the constitution. That is how it works, and I think we may as well keep an eye on the situation, since that is precisely what is going to happen. [Interjections.]

We also investigated alternatives for toll roads. How else were we going to obtain the R25 million we needed? There was only one way, and that was to impose a further levy on fuel. I want to ask the hon. member for Berea whether he is prepared to impose an additional fuel tax on the pensioner in Bronkhorstspruit with his small motor car and the handicapped person in Messina with his small motor car, people who are not interested in the Du Toits Kloof tunnel, so that the hon. member’s wealthy friends can drive through that tunnel calmly and conveniently in their trucks while the pensioners, the handicapped, the poor and the Blacks, who never come here, have to pay for that tunnel and those bridges? The hon. member must tell me. [Interjections.] I am speaking to the hon. member for Berea now. Those rowdy people can rise to speak later; they must not protest now.

What is their modus operandi in this matter? Their modus operandi is that toll gates should not be introduced, so that the roadbuilding programme can fall behind schedule and then those hon. members can point a finger and say that it is the fault of the bad Government that cannot even keep the road-building programme on schedule. However, supposing we do remain on schedule with the road-building programme, then the PFP caucus would say that this gesture of decreasing the price of fuel was simply a gimmick for the election because Hendrik Schoeman is now going to increase the price by 2 cents. It is as simple as that. This is transparent politics. I want to tell the hon. member for Berea that it does not befit senior politicians to come forward with such transparent politics. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon. member for Walmer. I was the person on the committee who thought that it would be stupid to insist on always having an alternative route. An alternative route to the road between Cape Town and Johannesburg, a road to which a toll levy applies, could include the route via Durban to Johannesburg as well. Can one be so stupid? However, the hon. member for Walmer and the hon. member for Berea stood by that. I told them that it was stupid. I was not the only one who was of that opinion. I was in good company. I respect the knowledge which the hon. member for Walmer has of roads and engineering works. He knows more about those things than many other people. However, he put the following question to a witness before the Select Committee—

I still think the hon. member was correct on that score. However, because we wanted to reach consensus in the Select Committee, we incorporated it in the legislation. Today I am still convinced that we are probably going to delete it again.

Let us take the road to Sun City, for example. There is no alternative route to that road. Do hon. members know how much that road is used? And who pays for that road? The ordinary taxpayer pays for that road. That is the kind of road that should be a toll road. Foreigners also make use of South Africa’s roads. However, we alone pay for them. I think the time has come for us to do it that way.

I ask the hon. member for Berea to give me his attention for a moment. We have identified where the possibilities for tolls exist. We said that they were the three bridges in the Eastern Cape, the Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel, the Kepersfontein Road, as well as the road south of Johannesburg. Those were the possibilities, and the hon. member agreed. Those are the roads for which alternative routes exist and those were the points we identified. The hon. member for Berea said that we should obtain the approval of this House when a toll levy point is going to be established. When is this to take place? Must it be submitted to this House after plans have been finalized, before they have been built, after they have been completed, or must we come to this House every year or every six months? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Walmer could reply to that.

You do it with railway lines.

The hon. member for Berea can send the replies to the hon. member for Walmer, since we should like to know.

If you do not ask him a question he does not need to answer.

The hon. member for Yeoville runs away when one wants to refer to him. He must therefore be quiet now. I do not have time to waste on him today. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point is not present here today.

And when he is not here, you ask why he is not here. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Berea said: “Some control should be retained.” The hon. member for Berea said that. It appears in the hon. member’s Hansard. However, do hon. members know what happened then? On the following day, on Wednesday, the hon. member for Sea Point said to the hon. the Minister of Community Development—

How can one live in a house thus divided against itself? [Interjections.] I feel sorry for the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Walmer. This about-face is not their fault. [Interjections.] They were forced to do so. Can hon. members imagine what fine prospects this legislation open up? Just consider the banks, the building societies, or whomever, that may have surplus capital. Suppose we could get them interested and we were to ask them to give us that surplus capital to build the roads concerned. They could then have the right to collect the toll, but we would supervise the amount to be paid and how it is to be determined. Then we could build the necessary roads. I can assure hon. members that those organizations are interested. Why is that hon. member doing an about-face now? I think we have now reached the stage where we should refrain from practising politics in the way the hon. the Opposition is doing, for who is ever going to sit on a Select Committee with an hon. member of the official Opposition again and believe that he is going to co-operate, and even if he does co-operate, that he is not going to behave like a turncoat at a later stage. For a moment I wanted to call him something else, but fortunately I did not. I think the official Opposition did those two hon. members, who made fine contributions on the committee, a disservice. They did those hon. members a disservice by making them do an about-face and adopt a negative attitude here.

I take pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Roodeplaat for a most interesting address. But I must say that he misses the point completely. [Interjections.] He spent the whole time discussing toll roads. What we are concerned with here is not the actual toll roads but the control which is going to be exercised. [Interjections.] This Bill arises out of the unanimous decision in the report of the Select Committee on the toll financing of roads.

Hear, hear!

I was a member of that committee, and I want to take this opportunity of thanking the chairman, the hon. member for Kempton Park, and the other hon. members for the manner in which the deliberations of that committee took place. They were friendly and constructive and I only have appreciation for that fact. A real storm in a teacup has, however, developed over the change to this Bill that we have suggested, and if I may say so, that teacup is just about the right sized swimming-bath for the hon. member for Umhlanga. [Interjections.]

No, it is not the right size because he cannot drown in it.

The Select Committee produced its report and the report was unanimously approved. The Select Committee approved the draft Bill before the House, and I had endorsed that draft Bill personally.

You agreed about all the provisions at the time.

I still support the Bill before the House in all its essentials.

No you do not.

In all its essentials, yes. That hon. member does not know what the Bill is all about.

Are you going to vote for it or against it?

It has been pointed out, however, that there is one aspect of this Bill that is unsatisfactory and could easily be remedied. [Interjections.] In these circumstances, to carry on regardless with the legislation, as originally envisaged, is about as stupid as, when building a house, and somebody points out to you that the foundations have been wrongly laid down going on in any case with the building of the house.

So you did not know about the foundations?

Who pointed it out to you?

Obviously, in these circumstances, somebody deserves to be kicked for not pointing this out in time. [Interjections.]

You and Ray Swart.

I am very happy to accept my share of those kicks, but everybody else is in the same position. However, to press on regardless with the legislation is a far more serious fault. Surely we are trying to produce the legislation that is best for the country and not just trying to prove how right we always are. [Interjections.]

We are big enough to admit it.

The danger inherent in this Bill is that it places in the hands of the Executive the power to promote toll financing of roads into a major method of continuously financing contraction work. This is obviously a danger. [Interjections.] We are now setting up a system for the long term and this has dangers and implications that must affect everybody. What we have done is to put forward an amendment that will obviate this possibility.

Why in the Second Reading?

In these circumstances we have not heard a single argument about the merits or faults of our suggestion. The hon. member for Roodeplaat spent a long time talking about this, but he never ever raised a single question about the merits or faults of this suggestion except…

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

Perhaps later on if I have the time. All we have had is a diatribe over the fact that we have had the temerity to see a particular aspect of the Bill in a new light.

Just to illustrate how silly this fuss is and what a high degree of unanimity there exists on this issue, let us just consider the hon. member for Kempton Park’s speech of Tuesday. He said toll financing would be unnecessary if the Treasury was able to supply the necessary funds. We agree with him. He also said he would have liked a greater contribution from the National Roads Fund. We agree with him there too.

The official Opposition has made a mistake.

We found a mistake.

I will never accept your word again. [Interjections.]

Are you saying you will not accept our word again?

Yes.

Well, that is a silly remark. [Interjections.]

Order!

If that is your attitude, you will get no further co-operation from this side for the rest of the session.

Order! The hon. member for Walmer is making a speech.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to say he will not accept our word again? [Interjections.] The rules prescribe that one is obliged to accept the word of an hon. member of the House. [Interjections.]

Keppies, do you want co-operation for the rest of the session?

Let us get the point of order out of the way first.

Order!

Sir, the hon. the Minister admitted he said it.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation …

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister either withdraws it, or he does not.

I am prepared to listen to the hon. the Minister’s explanation.

Mr. Speaker, one need not accept my word, but if I placed my signature on a document and undertook to obey a decision, I would not be prepared to break my word. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister should rather withdraw his statement about not accepting the hon. members’ word.

I withdraw it, Sir, but there will be fireworks later on! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: That is contemptuous of the Chair.

Order! The hon. the Minister has withdrawn it. The hon. member for Walmer may proceed. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister entitled to persist in this and now say that it is a scandalous thing that this is being done? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Walmer may proceed.

The Minister should be ashamed of himself.

Order!

I am going to tell my mommy on you!

Your mommy would repudiate you. [Interjections.]

You are the worst thing she ever did.

How a nice lady can have a child like you!

Order! The hon. members must give the hon. member for Walmer a chance to make his speech.

All I ask is that the hon. the Minister hear what I have to say before he decides whether he wants to trust us or not. What I was discussing was the degree of unanimity that exists over this issue and I was saying that the hon. member for Kempton Park had said that he would like a greater contribution from the National Road Fund. So would we. He said that we were forced to look for other sources of finance. In the circumstances, we agree with him. He said that toll financing seemed to be the only way of making finance available to meet the immediate problem. We agree with him there too. He said that toll roads had certain advantages, and he enumerated those advantages. We agreed with him there as well. The evidence submitted to the Select Committee was detailed and extensive. The representations made by various authorities and various bodies were an indication of how seriously they took their responsibilities. Overwhelmingly the evidence emphasized the contradiction between concern at the many disadvantages that attach to the toll financing system of roads and the enxiety on the part of officials to get ahead with an urgently required road programme in the face of fluctuating, unpredictable and inadequate cash flows. A review of the Select Committee report highlights the degree to which the Select Committee considers toll financing as a necessary but by no means ideal method of financing extensive projects in our present circumstances. Just let me read from that report. Paragraph 1 states—

Paragraph 3 states—

Paragraph 3 also refers to “the high collection costs in comparison with existing revenue sources for road financing”. Then, in paragraph 8, the committee makes the following recommendations—

It states further in paragraph 8(d)—

1. (i) an investigation be undertaken by the Department of Transport … into the methods of providing these funds.

It also advocates that—

1. (ii) the National Road Funds receive a fixed percentage levy on fuel sales, rather than a fixed amount.

It is obvious that the Select Committee regards toll financing in the light of an expensive necessity at this time. Its recommendations are designed to meet a particular situation—I do not think anybody will disagree with me here—a situation where the responsible officials have an immediate problem of planning and financing their construction programme in an atmosphere of grave financial uncertainty. It was therefore a compromised solution to take care of an interim situation. The hon. the Minister must remember this in the hope that the investigation called for in terms of paragraph 8(d)(i) would be successful in finding some better solution. The most important aspect of the report from a long-term point of view is therefore contained in paragraph 8(d)(i) and (ii). It calls, firstly, for an investigation to be undertaken into providing funds and, secondly, it makes the suggestion that “the National Road Fund receive a fixed percentage levy on fuel sales, rather than a fixed amount which is subject to negotiation from time to time, in order that the planning and provision of road facilities be stabilized.” In these circumstances it is obvious that toll roads were viewed essentially as an ad hoc measure by the Select Committee. If one doubts it, one needs only to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Kempton Park. He said on Tuesday (Hansard, 3 May 1983)—

The one shortcoming of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is therefore that it makes provision for a permanent system in terms of which new toll roads could be established by decision by the executive or the bureaucracy. We believe that any new toll road should be sanctioned by this House. I do not think anybody would want to launch the toll road system and see it take off and develop unmonitored by this House, as a major method of financing road construction over a long period.

We all agree with that. [Interjections.]

Well, that is fine. That is what we have been worried about. [Interjections.] All we are saying is that if only the Select Committee … [Interjections.]

You had all better be here this afternoon; the fur is is going to fly. [Interjections.]

Order!

I shall be here.

If one can no longer rely on a person’s word of honour, it is really a disgrace. [Interjections.]

Now what is this I hear about a word of honour? [Interjections.]

Order!

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the hon. the Minister? Is he sick? [Interjections.]

Order!

He is nervous about Waterberg and Soutpansberg. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister has referred again to the fact that he cannot accept the word of honour (erewoord) of hon. members of this party. Is he allowed to adopt that attitude? [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say he would not accept the word of honour of hon. members of the PFP?

Mr. Speaker, I said I would never again accept the word of honour of hon. members of the PFP. [Interjections.]

Order! It has been a tradition for a great many years in this House that hon. members have to accept the word of honour of other hon. members. I do not want any violation of that tradition. I therefore request the hon. the Minister to withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

The hon. member for Walmer may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the Select Committee was conscious of the fact that the collection costs of revenue from toll roads could be in the region of 25%. I believe that is a tremendously high percentage. It is consequently a very expensive source of finance. The Select Committee’s concern comes through loud and clear in its report, which the hon. the Minister has probably not read. It speaks of high collection costs in comparison with existing revenue sources, and I do not believe that its intention was to initiate a system in terms of which Parliament would give to the Executive the power to plan, to execute and to finance toll roads in an almost autonomous manner. I also cannot believe that this is something of which the Treasury will approve. There is a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, allocating a fuel tax to road constructors and, on the other hand, allowing the National Transport Commission the right to build toll roads.

In the first case the control of the pursestrings is left where it should be—in the hands of Parliament. In the second case one is delegating to a section of the executive what amounts to an authority to tax at their discretion for a particular purpose, namely the construction of roads. I have no doubt that this will be an unsatisfactory set of circumstances. We lose none of the benefits—that is what the hon. the Minister must remember—which flow from the recommendations of the Select Committee by agreeing to the suggestions made by this side of the House. We lose none of those benefits, unless the hon. the Minister has some special benefits in mind, about which we have not been informed. [Interjections.]

Order!

We must avoid committing a serious breach of the power of this House to control the funds of this country. It is a tradition; it is a practice, and we are in danger of losing it. There is no more adolescent argument—and this is the argument advanced by the hon. the Minister—than to say: You have changed your mind. What is important is that when one changes one’s mind one changes it for good reasons. Nobody has addressed those reasons at all. People who do not and will not change their mind for good reasons should be shovelling coal and should not be in a position of responsibility. There is just one question that we have to ask ourselves in this matter and that question is whether we wish to authorize the power to build highways and raise money to pay for them without this House being able to say yes or no. Is that what hon. members opposite want to do? Let me ask the hon. member for Kempton Park whether he knows what the value is of these four projects that we have. Does the hon. member know? It is close to R300 million. We are not dealing with trifling sums here. The estimated cost of these projects is greater than almost a third of the Votes which this House spends days and weeks discussing ad nauseam. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks it makes sense to place in the hands of the executive the decision to raise and to spend this kind of money. If he does think so, then we must ask ourselves why we debate so many other matters at such length in this place. The house has heard no single argument against the suggestion of the hon. member for Berea. He asks nothing but that authority for the raising and spending of money by means of toll roads be retained by Parliament. I would strongly suggest that this House support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea in order to achieve this goal.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer tried to explain to us his and his party’s dilemma but I am afraid he did not succeed. In actual fact, the position is now even more unclear than it was. However, I shall come back to this point later.

*Mr. Speaker, when all is said and done it would appear as if there are fairly sensitive toes on that side, but one can well understand that. I want to agree with the hon. member for Roodeplaat in saying that I enjoyed myself a great deal this morning when the hon. member for Umhlanga was making his speech. You know, one can try to give people a drubbing in a serious vein, but there is a much more efficient method of doing this, and that is to mock them to death. The hon. member for Umhlanga managed to do that beautifully. I had prepared myself to speak at some length to the Official Opposition, but after the hon. member for Umhlanga so beautifully made fun of them, and after the fine way in which the hon. member for Roodeplaat stated the facts, I do not think it is necessary for me to do so. I also want to say that I find it very strange that people can spin around in a circle like that.

The hon. members of the Official Opposition are apparently people who believe very strongly—and this I learnt here—in select committees and commissions of inquiry. After one of the first select committee on which I had the privilege of serving, those hon. members subsequently did an about-face on the basis of all kinds of fabrications. I find it exceptionally interesting that those hon. members come along with these arguments now, during the Second Reading stage of this legislation, matters that should, in any case, have been thrashed out in the Select Committee or otherwise in the Committee Stage of the Bill.

Because it would have been ruled out of order. That is why.

There was a particularly good spirit of co-operation in that Select Committee. I believe we understood each other very well, and in any case we had a very sound understanding of what the situation was all about. I want to concede that there are most certainly various ways of finding funds for road construction purposes. I would go so far as to say that there are methods of equivalent merit, but surely we did thrash this matter out fully. It is correct to say that we were not initially enthusiastic. Who is, in any case, ever enthusiastic about paying out money? With the facts at our disposal, as the hon. member for Roodeplaat so beautifully set out, we eventually set our course, however, and came to the present decision. We eventually decided unanimously that this was the best way of doing things, and that is why we have this amendment Bill before us today. I really find it disappointing that one should begin wondering about people’s credibility when it comes to putting amendments during the Second Reading stage of this Bill.

I also want to join other hon. members on this side of the House in extending my sympathies to the two hon. members of the PFP who served on that Select Committee.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14hl5.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the official Opposition for the last time now. I find it really disappointing—when all is said and done—when I look at the hon. members’ credibility. If I were to have been asked if I would ever have believed something like that to have been possible, I would definitely have said no.

†I want to put it to the hon. member for Walmer that not a single hon. member has disputed the main principle involved. No hon. member on this side of the House accused the official Opposition, especially its two hon. members concerned, of doing a somersault on the main principle involved. The main principle is after all whether we are going to have toll roads are not. I therefore believe it was totally unnecessary for the hon. member for Walmer to make an issue of this. [Interjections.] The point is that the hon. member never explained the big “why?”. Why at this stage and why not during a full year of deliberations and discussions? Why not in that Select Committee? We should like te have an honest reply.

*The travelling public would naturally choose not to stop on such a toll road. They would choose not to make toll payments, but I believe that the ordinary motorist in South Africa realizes that one needs money to establish a facility such as a new road, money that has to come from somewhere. It nevertheless remains a sound principle that the person who uses something should pay for it. If the businessman, the industrialist or whatever pays for it, what we have are not additional costs as such, because the costs to be incurred at the toll gate are, after all, only a portion of the total savings. This means that this system is going to bring about a great saving, not only as far as commerce and industry are concerned, but also as far as the consumer in South Africa is concerned.

Born as I was at the foot of the Du Toit’s Kloof Pass, this Bill is of cardinal importance as far as I am concerned. One thinks back to the days when the Bains Kloof Pass in my constituency was our main route to the north. Today we see how hopeless that pass is when it comes to carrying traffic, and we therefore realize that the Du Toit’s Kloof Pass—I saw them building it—was, in those years, absolutely essential to provide a new main route to the north. Today that same pass is fairly outmoded, very dangerous and, in any case, hopelessly inadequate when it comes to carrying the traffic that increases by the year. Because alternatives have to be introduced, and there is a lack of money, this is surely the logical solution. I believe the future will prove that the public is going to make full use of this facility because of the saving it will bring about.

Just a final word, and this brings me back to the amendment of the official Opposition. I believe that the location of a toll road—I think other hon. members on this side will share this view with me—must be seen in a broad context, i.e. within the total South African context. I do not think that one must merely relegate this question to a debate in this House. I think the House does, in any case, have enough with which to keep itself occupied, and in the future new dispensations there will certainly be even more. To put it bluntly, what I am saying is that I do not want to confine the matter to the eloquent pleas of hon. members; I want to see a responsible body deciding what is in the best interests of South Africa in general. If not, this would be very much like the position of the board of directors of a company—let us compare the House with such a board of directors—which does not merely confine itself to the principles, but also interferes in the management functions. I believe that all businessmen agree with me that that is wrong. In fact, I consider it catastrophic.

I can therefore in no way agree with the amendment of the hon. member for Berea and consequently the official Opposition. As a final word, let me say that I regret very much that they moved the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I really do not want to go into the advantages and disadvantages of toll roads at this stage, because I do not think it is at all relevant in this context. During the course of the debate there were a few terribly strange points put forward in motivation. Here I am thinking specifically of the hon. member for Roodeplaat. With this legislation he wants to protect the poor little old lady in Messina because she will supposedly have to pay for the luxury Du Toit’s Kloof project.

For the “fat-cats”.

This is a very serious situation. Does the hon. member want to allege that the Du Toit’s Kloof project is not an important project as far as the whole of South Africa is concerned? That same hon. member wants to tax the little old lady in Louis Trichardt with a wonderful freeway by-passing Bloemfontein. Is that not so?

You are a joke.

That little old lady pays for a big freeway which by-passes Bloemfontein and carries 2 00 vehicles per day. [Interjections.] That is a specific example of how money has been wasted in the past. We should rather protect that little old lady against such bad decisions in the past.

Whilst we are speaking about expensive toll gates, let me just say that one could operate a very cheap toll gate on the freeway at Bloemfontein. All one needs is a little camp-stool, an umbrella and a calendar so that the toll gate keeper can at least make sure that there isn’t perhaps another car on its way.

And then you still say you are dealing with serious matters.

We join the members of the Select Committee in accepting the fact that there are indeed reasons why toll facilities must be introduced on certain roads. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Berea’s amendment deals only with the method of implementation of toll facilities. Our attitude was that if we were to have come with an amendment in the Committee Stage, it could be ruled out of order because the principle contained in the Bill gave the National Transport Commission decision-making powers about whether toll facilities should be introduced at particular points or not. We want to ensure that Parliament has a say even as early as the Second Reading stage. The main reason for our saying this is actually contained in the committee’s report. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to point 5 on page xi, and I quote—

This is very important—

The Government is, of course, this Parliament. When it comes to the allocation of the resources of this country, Parliament is where this must be done. The allocation of scanty resources, especially capital, is of cardinal importance in times such as these when other services and projects are also making serious claims on that scanty capital. It is a well-known fact that road construction facilities are very expensive. A single project can therefore have a very great influence on the availability of capital and on the allocation of resources to services whose needs have to be satisfied by way of such resources.

I should like to put two questions to the hon. the Minister and ask him to answer them when he delivers his reply. We have heard a great deal about things certain people are supposed to have signed. In 1977 one person signed this and another person that. That, however, is an argument which does not get anyone anywhere at all.

There are two questions I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. It is accepted, in this Parliament, that all irrigation projects—projects where it is a question of the allocation of capital for infrastructure, etc.—must come before this Parliament in the form of a White Paper. [Interjections.] For example, I have three White Papers in front of me here. These White Papers deal with the Riet River Scheme. The first is dated 1962, when there was a request for the meagre amount of R150 000. In 1965 there was another White Paper on the same scheme, but by then the cost had moved up from R150 000 to R550 000. Even later, in 1969, there was a further White Paper in which a request was made for a further R300 000 for the same project. If this Parliament consequently feels it is so important for each State water scheme to be put before Parliament, even when so ridiculous an amount as R150 000 is involved, I ask, with tears in my eyes, why it should not also be done when it comes to amounts of R60 million. I should like the hon. the Minister to give me a very clear answer to that question. Does the hon. the Minister think it is wrong for each water scheme to be approved by this Parliament?

No, it is not wrong.

Well, if it is not wrong, where does the double-talk come from? Not from this side of the House. [Interjections.] We are talking about a system, nothing but a system. [Interjections.] Is it unnecessary? [Interjections.] Let me ask any hon. member to explain this to me. No one has thus far expressed an opinion on this. [Interjections.] The same applies in the case of the construction of any railway line. [Interjections.] Is the hon. the Minister saying that it is unnecessary for the construction of any railway line to have to be approved by this Parliament?

You may not be a psychiatrist, but you yourself can go and see one.

I just want the hon. the Minister to answer the question: Why, then, not roads as well? That is all we are asking. At this stage we are not saying anything about the principle of toll roads, whether that is right or wrong. [Interjections.]

Then why are you voting against it?

This brings me to my second question.

What about the Njelele water scheme?

It also relates to the very first recommendation in this document. It is said that the committee wants to introduce toll financing for a specific project in South Africa. The English text uses the word “specific”. [Interjections.] Let me now ask any hon. member, even the hon. member for Umhlanga: Can he show me any reference in this legislation making it impossible for the Transport Commission—say tomorrow morning—to declare the road between Durban and Umhlanga to be a toll road? [Interjections.] Nowhere is it prohibited.

Not without the hon. the Minister’s consent.

From that hon. Minister one can expect anything. [Interjections.] After all, we have already heard the airport story. [Interjections.] There is nothing in this legislation that states that it is not possible for the hon. the Minister and his officials to declare any road in this country to be a toll road.

Why do you not deal with this in the Committee Stage?

It cannot be dealt with in the Committee Stage. [Interjections.] I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to focus his attention on those two questions, the one about why it is not possible and the other why the matter should not come before this Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to devote much time to the hon. member for Greytown.

Well, sit down then.

The hon. member for Parktown knows nothing about toll roads. He should therefore rather keep quiet.

We have had an amazing debate on this particular Bill. The hon. member for Greytown says they have no problem as far as the principle is concerned, but at the same time he supports the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berea. Then surely he does have a problem as far as the principle of the Bill is concerned. He has suggested it in the Second Reading debate.

The reason why it is such an amazing debate mainly revolves round the fact that two hon. members of the official Opposition who served on the Select Committee that unanimously endorsed this Bill and recommended that it be submitted to the House, have now done a somersault. Now the hon. member for Walmer says that someone has, in the interim, pointed out that there is something wrong with the foundations on which this Bill rests and asks why they cannot simply be allowed to point out the error they have discovered. We want to ask that hon. member who it was who pointed out the error in the foundation on which the Bill rests.

Harry!

I just want to say that in making that statement the hon. member for Walmer has moved a motion of no confident in himself. To the best of my knowledge he has in the past—perhaps that is still the case at the moment—had very extensive interests in the construction of roads, bridges, etc. That hon. member sat on the Select Committee for more than a year but did not discover anything to be wrong with the foundations on which the Bill rests. He has only now discovered this. [Interjections.]

In his speech the hon. member for Berea made another amazing statement. He said that amongst all the members of the Select Committee there was very little enthusiasm for this Bill. That I very seriously want to dispute. Let us look at the first report the Select Committee published. All of us who served on that committee agreed wholeheartedly with one another on certain points. The first was that there was an extensive lack of funds for road construction in South Africa, that a backlog had developed and that we had to find some method or other to supplement the financing resources for road construction in South Africa without having to burden the taxpayer too heavily. We also found that the other possible methods that are available would not be adequate to wipe out the backlog. We found, in addition, that the toll financing of roads would considerably relieve the position. The committee subsequently recommended to the House that at present this was the most suitable method for wiping out the backlog. The committee further recommended that this should be introduced as quickly as possible—not in a year’s time, or two or three years’ time, but as quickly as possible.

So I could go on pointing to numerous matters about which we agreed and about which the committee—not without enthusiasm, but as a result of the urgency of the situation—unanimously submitted this report and the Bill. The objections that the two hon. members of the official Opposition now have against the Bill, they never raised whilst the committee was engaged in its deliberations.

There was no legislation at that stage.

The hon. member for Greytown did not serve on that committee. He should rather keep quiet, because he has no knowledge of what went on in that committee. The committee met frequently, but never at any stage did any one of the two hon. members of the official Opposition raise the question of parliamentary control which they are now bringing to the fore. We were always in agreement.

I agree.

We were indeed in unanimous agreement with one another that there would be governmental input. We looked at various possibilities and eventually agreed that the National Transport Commission would be the best body to exercise control over toll financing, the construction of toll roads and the installation of toll works.

Why can they not make decisions about railway lines as well?

I shall be dealing with the hon. member for Greytown’s argument about railway lines and State water schemes in a minute.

He has fallen off his trolley.

The hon. member for Smithfield says the hon. member has gone off the rails.

There is another question I want to raise. What happened from the time the Select Committee tabled its final report, together with the Bill, and the period half an hour prior to the matter coming up for discussion in this House? This House has not yet obtained a satisfactory answer to that question. What is, at the moment, a great big problem as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, is the following: As a result of this, how must we in future react in other Select Committees? What must our attitude be towards hon. members of the official Opposition who serve on those committees?

We must ignore them.

What are they doing there if we do not know, after such a Select Committee has furnished the House with its report…?

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

No, I do not want to answer any question. What must we do with hon. members who serve with us on a Select Committee in which we agree about important matters—it is a committee that serves to advise this House and to make recommendations to this House—without knowing, when the committee’s report and recommendations are discussed here, whether those hon. members who served with us on the committee still adhere to their standpoint?

We adhere to the same standpoints.

I now want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville a question. He is a very prominent member of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and he must now tell us what the attitude of other hon. members on this side of the House who serve with him on that committee must be towards him? Can we still, in regard to the standpoints he puts forward there …?

I am very worried about what you chaps do on that committee.

Can we trust that hon. member to put forward, in this House, the same standpoint he put forward in the Select Committee? I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville: What would he do after having put pen to paper in a Select Committee? Would he allow his caucus to outbid him and say: In spite of what you wrote and in spite of what you signed, we shall compel you to adopt a different standpoint in the House? [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. member for Yeoville to stop talking to the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I have put a serious question to that hon. member, and we want to know what his answer is. I think I should repeat the question. Would he, after he has put pen to paper in a Select Committee, permit his caucus to tell him: Mr. Schwarz, in spite of what you said, this is our decision and we shall compel you to adhere to our decision in the House? [Interjections.] Sir, I notice the hon. member for Yeoville is not even looking at me. Nor does he want to answer me. Let me therefore give him the answer. The hon. member would not allow what happened to the hon. members for Berea and Walmer to happen to him.

I now come to the argument of the hon. member for Greytown. His argument is that because the Water Act has, all these years now, contained a provision requiring that each proposed State water scheme should be tabled in this House by way of a White Paper, and because the Railway Construction Act requires that when a new Railway line is envisaged, the fact must also be tabled here by way of a White Paper, it must also be done when a toll road has to be declared. That is not, however, a valid argument, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member wanted to be consistent, he should have made the same demands in regard to every project the Government undertakes, for example every Government building to be erected, every school, every university. Must the hon. the Minister then come to this House day in and day out to give notice of this, for the sake of Parliamentary control?

Why then do we have a budget?

The hon. member for Groote Schuur now has his finger right on the spot. Why then did those hon. members not indicate, in the Select Committee, that they would like notice to be given to this Parliament of any intention to establish toll roads? The hon. the Minister’s department does, in any case, bring out an annual report each year. Why did those hon. members not ask the department, by way of an addendum in its report, to give a preview of the toll roads to be established in the future? At one and the same time all other particulars could also be supplied, inter alia the financial costs involved. But no, for some or other obscure reason we have not yet been able to fathom, the caucus of the PFP decided to oppose the principle of the legislation in this way. I say it is deplorable conduct. I believe that our whole Parliamentary tradition …

Oh, go away!

Sir, it is a serious matter. I allege that all our parliamentary traditions involving Select Committees are hereby being prejudiced. Yesterday this House approved the First Reading of a new draft constitution for South Africa. That legislation will also be going to a Select Committee after Second Reading, to the Select Committee on the Constitution, and there are also members of the PFP on that Committee. What must our approach to the PFP now be when, in that committee, we have to deal with a new constitution for South Africa, when we do not know whether the standpoint they adopt there will be adhered to in the House? I think this is an extremely serious situation. Let me recommend to those hon. members that they think about this very seriously again, because their conduct here, in connection with this legislation, could have serious repercussions for the future functioning of Parliament.

Sir, I am therefore opposed to the amendment of the hon. member for Berea and support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ermelo has really astounded me. I always used to understand that the NP prided itself upon the fact that it knew what went on in the caucus of the PFP. When he asked the question, however, about who was in the caucus and who persuaded the caucus that there would in fact be parliamentary authority given to impose a toll system on roads, he wanted to know who it had in fact been. There were shouts from the other side of the House that it was Bamford, that it was Schwarz, that it was Ray Swart, etc. So, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we have the situation here that whatever contact hon. members of the NP have had with the PFP caucus in the past has gone south; they don’t have that contact anymore. [Interjections.]

The second point I should like to make is the following: [Interjections.] Our two commissioners, who signed that report … [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will permit me to continue, Mr. Speaker, I should appreciate it. Otherwise, I am afraid there will not be very much time left to debate his constitutional legislation.

He is worried about the attitude of his own caucus towards his constitutional legislation. [Interjections.]

Our two commissioners signed that report. They have said in this House—they have not run away from it—that this amendment is indeed an improvement. At least they do have the courage to do that, and for that I should like to honour them. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the signing of documents I would be very careful if I were an hon. member of the NP because we remember how an hon. gentleman was standing in his bench opposite, only a couple of years ago, an hon. gentleman who made an extraordinary remark. Do hon. members opposite remember that? [Interjections.] He said he had signed but he had made perfectly sure that he was not looking at a single page he had to sign. [Interjections.] Oh, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to signatures, I believe one has to be very, very careful. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself now to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. I must say I can understand his anger. I can understand why he is so angry. He thought he was going to get away with a Second Reading, with a Committee State, and with a Third Reading, in a matter of 25 minutes on Tuesday afternoon.

And why not? [Interjections.]

Well, Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for the hon. the Minister. He is desperately keen on going up to the north. [Interjections.] Obviously he is very keen to go in order to try to repair some of the damage he has already done up there.

Yes, no Coloured Minister of Transport! [Interjections.]

That is right. No Coloured Minister of Transport when that hon. Minister goes up north. Every time he goes up north we get 50 or 60 or 100 more votes in Waterkloof. I can assure the hon. the Minister of that. [Interjections.]

I should like to hear him on the Mixed Marriages Act. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we are in very great danger this afternoon. The hon. member for Ermelo gave a reason why it should be perhaps suggested that parliamentary proceedings were going to be affected by this debate. On the contrary, I believe we are misguided if we think that a Select Committee report is binding on this House. I want to put seven questions to the hon. the Minister. The first one is the following. Does he regard the report of a Select Committee of this House to be binding on the House and on his party? I believe that is a fair question. You see, Mr. Speaker, the answer has long since been given. The answer is in Parliamentary Procedure in South Africa, by Ralph Kilpin, on page 113, and I quote—

A Select Committee is an investigative body. It is the servant of this House. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote further; this time from page 664 of Parliamentary Practice, by Erskine May. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the learned author Erskine May is dealing here with the question of the relationship between a Select Committee and the House and has appointed it. This is what he says in connection with the consideration of a report of a Select Committee—

The House is at large on the report of a Select Committee. [Interjections.] No, Mr. Speaker, one cannot have it both ways. One cannot suggest that a Select Committee report binds the caucus of the PFP but that it does not bind the caucus of the NP. That is the first question I want to put to the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

May I please ask a question?

No. The point is in fact that if the hon. the Minister contends that there is a rule that the report of a Select Committee is binding upon this House and upon his caucus, then I want to ask this: Why is it not contained in the Rules of this House? Why do the Standing Rules and Orders not provide that the findings and recommendations of a Select Committee are binding on this House? That is quite simple. If the hon. the Minister would like to propose that at the next meeting of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, I do not say that I will support him but we certainly can have a very interesting debate. I should also like to know what the attitude of the secretariat and also what your attitude, Sir, would be in this regard.

It would be very embarrassing for the NP.

The second question I wish to put to the hon. the Minister is this. Did his caucus consider the Select Committee’s report on this matter? That is a very simple question.

They ignore their caucus most of the time.

The hon. the Minister is in difficulty. If his caucus did not consider this report then by a process of elimination we on this side are going to be able to find out ultimately what in fact they do discuss in their caucus. [Interjections.] We have been told that hon. members opposite do not discuss the question of whether members can take Black guests into the Parliamentary Dining-room. If they do not discuss the reports of Select Committees then, by a process of elimination, we will in the end know exactly what they do talk about. I could guess, but I do not think the House would be interested in my guesswork. If the NP caucus did in fact consider the Select Committee’s report, then why did it do so? That is a good question because I want to say that my caucus did consider it.

When?

That is not your business. [Interjections.]

May I please ask the hon. member a question?

No, I will not take a question. My third question is this. I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to this question, not now, but when he replies. Is this a taxing measure? My fourth question is this. If it is a taxing measure, does he not believe that there should be overriding reasons present why Parliament itself should not be the body that imposes a tax? Does he agree with that or not? Incidentally, Sir, I understood the hon. member for Durban North to suggest that there was no problem, because the Minister has to approve the imposition of a toll. That is not true. I do not think he has read the Bill. [Interjections.] No, it is the commission that imposes the toll. [Interjections.] Where does he get the words “on the advice of the Minister”?

Read the proposed new section 9(4)(a) on page 4 of the Bill.

No, Sir. The hon. member has not read the Bill. The proposed new section 9(1) provides that the commission may impose a toll.

I told you to read subsection (4)(a). It is there, read it. [Interjections.]

Subsection (4) states—

1. (a) shall be determined by the Minister on the recommendation of the Commission.

[Interjections.] Oh, no, Sir. They must not come along with that sort of thing. [Interjections.]

The fifth question I wish to ask the hon. the Minister is this. Would he rather have an Opposition that was prepared to come to the House and, because it was scared to take some flak, was prepared to pass legislation which it did not believe was in the best interests of the country? [Interjections.] No, it is a fair question. I have never doubted the bona fides of the Government; I do not do that. I respect the Government; it is prepared to take the consequences. I am asking what the hon. the Minister’s attitude to the official Opposition is. Would he rather have us—rightly or wrongly—not passing the best legislation, and because we are scared of some flak, we sit here and duly pass legislation which we do not regard as the best possible in the circumstances?

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

No. I have two more questions to ask and after I have asked them, I shall reply to questions.

The sixth question is this: Some hon. members have suggested that the Second Reading was not the proper place to move this amendment. The hon. the Minister is not a lawyer; but he does not have to be a lawyer to answer this question. What will he say if it was argued, rightly or wrongly, that, not only in our view but on the advice that we got, had we moved this amendment in the Committee Stage it would have been ruled out of order? Will he then accept that the Second Reading was the proper place to move the amendment?

I now come to question No. 7. I put this question very reluctantly. I do so after very serious consideration and I do so only in the context of the hon. the Minister having doubted our word.

Will the hon. the Minister answer this question: On Tuesday afternoon was he not told of the amendment? Was he not then asked to consider it and did he not then come back with a suggestion that in fact he would be happy if we would be prepared to pass the Second Reading, as it is, on the absolute understanding that (1) the present Bill would be limited to four tolls and (2) he would immediately introduce legislation to amend the Bill to provide for an approval of Parliament for future tolls?

No, not at all.

I said that I put that question reluctantly because it has tinges of confidentiality. I admit that, and if I am being wrong, then maybe I shall have to apologize. I think this is an important matter. I want to say that the hon. the Minister suggested that that would be a reasonable compromise. He did say—I want to be quite fair—that he would have to put it to his department. As far as he was concerned, however, that was the offer he made. We did not make that offer; the hon. the Minister did.

Brian, you are low.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

Sir, I withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister then came back to us and said: No, for reasons which I can give you later the department is not to be seen in favour of this compromise. Fair enough, I have no problem with the department and I have no problem with the hon. the Minister. He is perfectly honest with us; he has nothing to be ashamed of. What is important is that in those ten minutes he was of the view, that he subscribed to our attitude that Parliament should have the ultimate control over the imposition of taxes in South Africa and in particular if one has regard to the vast amounts of money that are to be taken from the public and expended on capital works. For these reasons I support the amendment. I have every confidence that this in fact would be better legislation. I also expect the hon. the Minister to answer those seven questions and the question put by the hon. member for Greytown in regard to the comparable situation of railways and irrigation works.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the final question of the hon. member for Groote Schuur first, after which I shall come to the other points. When the legislation of another hon. Minister was being discussed, a few minutes before we were to discuss the toll legislation, the hon. member for Berea came to me and showed me his amendment. I read it and I asked him why they were going to move it. He replied that his caucus felt that they should not give me those powers, but that Parliament should decide on the introduction of a new toll gate. I rose and told him that I could accommodate him if they had a problem and if the implementation of this measure would be delayed as a result, by announcing during the Second Reading which toll roads would be introduced now, but that if we should want additional toll roads at a later stage, I would inform him well in advance and we could reach an agreement.

Apologize, Brian.

I never said that I first wanted to refer it to my caucus. How can I refer it to my caucus?

He never said that.

He said I should refer the matter to the Government.

He never said that.

Those were my words to the hon. member for Berea.

He did not say that.

He did say that I first wanted to refer it to the Government.

He was referring to the department.

I told the hon. member for Berea that if he was concerned about that, we could specify which toll roads we had in mind during my Second Reading speech. The hon. member must tell me whether I am lying. He went and told that story to the hon. member for Groote Schuur.

No, you told us together.

Do you disagree that I said that we could alter the legislation? Did I say that?

Yes, you said you would come later with legislation.

Sir, let me tell you what is behind all this.

Tell him that is not true.

It is a downright lie. However, let me explain what is behind all this. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May I address you before you give your ruling?

No, Mr. Speaker, a point of order is being taken. The hon. the Minister used the words “infame leuen” (downright lie).

Order! The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs must withdraw those words.

I withdraw the words, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Should hon. members opposite not accept the word of the hon. the Minister that he did not say that?

They are not permitted to say that he told a lie.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: As I understand the rules of this House, an hon. member is not permitted to question the word of another hon. member. It was stated very directly, not merely insinuated, that what the hon. the Minister had said was not true. This is not merely a question of whether it is a lie or the truth, it is a matter of the word of an hon. member being called in question.

Order! I wish to make it very clear that in his argument the hon. member for Groote Schuur said that if he was making a mistake, he would apologize. That is what he said. Thereupon the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs rose and said that he was telling a “downright lie”. I cannot permit that. I cannot allow those words to be used. I realize that hon. members must not call the word of other hon. members in question. Surely, the idea is that one hon. member should accept the word of another hon. member. However, should he call him a liar, it is my duty to call him to order and to ask him to withdraw it. The hon. the Minister has already withdrawn those words. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, since this debate commenced, I have ascertained what happened. I am a man of my word. When concluding important transactions, I often feel like saying to a man that he need not sign because he has my word.

What about my whisky?

Man, you will get your whisky. [Interjections.] I keep my word. That is why I am very sensitive today. What happened? We appointed a Select Committee. Those people speak about government by consensus, using Select Committees. The hon. member for Groote Schuur said that. He said: Give us a Select Committee rather than a judge. He said that in this House. He prefers a Select Committee to a judge …

The other way around.

… for certain problems we have.

It is the other way round.

There was a Select Committee in which there were members who signed unanimously in favour of legislation to approve a toll system. I attach a high priority, a great deal of value, to a man’s honesty. If I have given someone my word, I stick to it. We appointed a committee more than a year ago. For 15 months the committee met, and we went to look at certain roads. We spent thousands of rands of the tax-payer’s money. Then a report was tabled. It was tabled months ago. A few days ago a report appeared in The Cape Times: “Toll-road system unfair.” That was even before we had commenced discussing this Act, before there was any question of a dispute. Everyone was ad idem. There was a unanimous report. [Interjections.] Then a problem arose in their caucus. We are all aware that there is a struggle going on in their caucus. They know that too. [Interjections.] I know the hon. member for Yeoville so well.

So I am the villain of the piece, am I?

No, he is very easily hurt and then he becomes angry. [Interjections.] The last time we had to make peace, I was calm all the time. I have never angered anyone, but he becomes furious just like that! [Interjections.]

If you want to start again, I am ready. [Interjections.]

I should like to know something from the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Walmer. Since they have agreed, since they have put it in writing, and there has been unanimous agreement, what are they going to do when a division is called for in a moment?

After all, the amendment is in your favour.

I want to know what they are going to do when we have a division just now. [Interjections.] If I had sat on a Select Committee for 15 months and there had been a unanimous report, and the members of my caucus told me that they were going to repudiate me in Parliament, or that they would compel me to do an about-face and state the opposite standpoint in Parliament, I would say to the caucus: This caucus is no place for me. [Interjections.]

Harry would do that too.

Hendrik, why do you not resign because of the Immorality Act or the Mixed Marriages Act?

Now this …

Why did you not resign because of those Acts? [Interjections.]

Just one short question …

You were in favour of repealing the Mixed Marriages Act and the caucus forced you to do an about-face. [Interjections.] Why do you not reply?

I just want to ask …

Why are you so quiet?

Can we appoint a Select Committee in future …

The hon. member for Yeoville is doing an about-face without having signed anything. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot permit a dialogue between the hon. the Minister of Health and Welfare and the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs may proceed.

Just before this debate commenced, the hon. member came to me and said that his caucus had said that when we build railway lines we have to obtain the permission of Parliament. The hon. member for Greytown came forward with a similar argument about dams. We build roads worth millions of rands throughout the country without ever consulting Parliament. That is a completely different matter. We build millions of rands worth of double-lane freeways.

The hon. member for Berea asked Dr. De Loor in the Select Committee (Question 85)—

Dr. De Loor replied, inter alia—

There the hon. member has the reply, but now after so much money has been spent for so many months, he comes up with this feeble argument and says that his caucus has received certain advice. There were certain objections to this in the Press and certain of their “pals” sent them telegrams and then they did an about-face at the last minute. They do not have the courage of their convictions to tell their people: But we are in honour bound …

But that Press report has nothing to do with Parliament.

I know how that caucus works. After all I have piloted many laws through this Parliament. At one stage there were a number of farmers on their side and they all said that they agreed with certain legislation. Then suddenly, a number of telegrams arrived and there was a Press report and then the same people told me: We are sorry, but we have changed out minds.

No, that is not true.

I want an Opposition that can adopt a standpoint and stick to it. However, I have indicated what my experience has been in the past.

Now the hon. member for Groote Schuur has put a number of questions to me.

†He asked whether the NP caucus considered this report. Of course not. He also asked if this is a tax matter. Of course it is. He asked if, in those circumstances, Parliament should not decide. It is a tax matter if the City Council of Cape Town decides to build a swimming-bath, but do they then say what tickets will cost to swim there? Those are simply nonsensical questions.

Naturally it would go before the committee on utilities.

The hon. member went on to say that they had received advice that if they moved an amendment in the Committee Stage it would be ruled out of order. When did they start asking for advice? It was after they had a fight in the caucus. That is the reason. They had 15 months in which to consider this, they had members serving on the Select Committee and they received a report.

*Then the telegrams began arriving and the Press said: “No, wait!”

I wish to conclude. The hon. member for Kempton Park and his committee worked hard at this legislation and I could see how surprised he was the day before yesterday. He simply could not believe it. The hon. member for Koedoespoort pointed out clearly that there were alternative routes and I wish to thank him for his contribution.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga also replied very effectively. He referred to the lack of funds and the fuel savings. Then he asked: What about accepting a man’s word? Then the reply came from the benches opposite: “So what?” You know, Sir, that shocked me. The hon. member asked: Can we accept your word in future? Then there was an interjection: “So what?”

That is also their attitude to the new constitution.

The hon. member for Roodeplaat pointed out once again that they had signed. What is going to become of our proposed politics of consensus if members of a Select Committee simply do an about-face? They are turning this into a farce. One will achieve nothing with such jelly-fish in any case.

†The hon. member for Walmer said one cannot carry on building when one sees there is something wrong with the foundation. It took him 15 months to learn that there was something wrong with the foundation and then someone else had to tell him there was something wrong.

*The hon. member for Wellington made the matter very clear. The hon. member for Greytown said that one could expect anything from me. That is quite correct. However, I want to tell him that I will not break my promise. When I put something in writing, I stand or fall by what I put my signature to. I can assure hon. members of that. One can expect anything of me, but I am very upset about this matter. I also want to tell hon. members that I would never do what the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Walmer did. I think this is a tragedy we have been witnessing here. There is such a thing as pride in what one has decided, and then one stands or falls by what one has decided, especially if one has signed it! [Interjections.] The hon. member for Groote Schuur tried to cover up the whole thing. I am disappointed in the hon. member for Berea, the hon. member for Walmer, as well as the hon. member for Groote Schuur. I am particularly sympathetic towards the hon. member for Groote Schuur—he knows that—since he and I have the same problem. The hon. member for Berea has never treated me badly, and I know that he is in a difficult position, and I am not angry with him. The hon. member for Walmer was also a member of the committee, and together we have visited the country’s harbours and railway lines and we have a fine relationship. Nevertheless, I am disappointed. I certainly would never allow myself to be pressurized in my political career like those two hon. members have been by some hon. members opposite who say: Violate your conscience for a certain purpose; ignore what you have signed.

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

Upon which the House divided:

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

1. 1. On page 2, after line 29, to insert:
   (viii) “insolvent” means—
   1. (a) any person whose estate is under sequestration in terms of the Insolvency Act, 1936 (Act No. 24 of 1936);
   2. (b) any insolvent deceased estate which is dealt with in terms of the provisions of section 34(5) of the Administration of Estates Act, 1965 (Act No. 66 of 1965);
   3. (c) any juristic person in liquidation which is unable to pay its debts;
   4. (d) any person whose estate is dealt with in terms of section 28(5) of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966 (Act No. 28 of 1966);
2. 2. On page 2, in line 8, to omit “or let”.
3. 3. On page 2, in line 9, to omit “or lease”.
4. 4. On page 2, in lines 14 to 18, to omit paragraph (iv).
5. 5. On page 4, in line 5, to omit all the words after the first “scheme” up to and including “granted” in line 7.

I shall try to deal with them all as quickly as I can. The first amendment includes a definition of “insolvent” which is the identical definition that is contained in the Alienation of Land Act. The reason for this amendment is a very obvious one, namely that the entities who conduct this sort of business are in the main companies. If they are placed into liquidation a very real threat exists. There are very few people who, as individuals, conduct this kind of business. So, the definition of “insolvent” now not only is to mean an estate which is under sequestration, or a deceased estate which is being administered in terms of the Estates Act as such, but also people whose estates are being handled in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, and in particular, and perhaps most important, any juristic person that is in liquidation. That in particular refers to companies in terms of the Companies Act. That is the motivation for my first amendment, and I am sure there should not be much trouble about it.

My second amendment, and so also my third amendment, deal with the definition of “alienate”, as it is currently to be found in the Bill. Clause l(ii) reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, there are two points which arise here. Firstly, if one buys a time-sharing interest—and I also tried to deal with that during Second Reading—what is important to us is the title which is obtained. If one merely has an ordinary lease, which is a short lease, one has indeed very little title to it at all. The second matter, which I think is also important is that I do not believe it is intended that this legislation should in fact cover every letting of property. It should only cover the letting of property which relates to a property time-sharing scheme, as required in terms of clause l(xii).

One of the problems that exists is that if we leave this issue of the lease in the form in which it is now a lot of ordinary leases are actually going to become subject to this property time-sharing control legislation, which was never the intention of the legislator at all. Ordinary, normal leases are certainly not intended to be governed by this particular piece of legislation. That is why I want this stipulation to be restricted to a sale. I do not want this legislation to be applicable to ordinary leases; nor do I want it to be applicable to leases where there is only a short period of time given without any title other than an agreement.

A little later on, Mr. Chairman, in respect of the other clauses of this Bill, it is suggested, as we shall see, that time-sharing should indeed be restricted only to matters which are subject both to the share block control scheme and the sectional title scheme.

I should nevertheless like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister also on the issue of whether he intends to cover all leases in terms of this legislation. This, I believe, is the very real problem because I do not believe that has ever been the intention.

My fourth amendment has a bearing on the question of a club. I must say that the concept of a club, where a man has no title, where he should join a club which can become insolvent, and which burdens other people with responsibilities which they may not even fulfil, even though it is being used in other parts of the world, is to my mind an unsatisfactory mechanism for this type of activity. It is a completely unsatisfactory mechanism, and to include this concept of a club, where a man can end up being responsible for any number of other people’s debts, is to my mind something which is quite unacceptable in these circumstances. That is why, whatever other advantages clubs may have in respect of other matters, I believe that they are certainly not an appropriate mechanism in respect of property time-sharing schemes. Overseas experience has shown that it is the clubs that normally find themselves going into liquidation or going insolvent, sometimes with disastrous consequences for their members. That is what my said two amendments are actually seeking to avoid. The amendment in respect of line 5, on page 4, follows on the amendment I moved to clause l(iv).

Mr. Chairman, on the face of it there seems to be some merit in the first amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. I assume that the hon. the Deputy Minister will react to it. However, I think there are definite objections against his second and third amendments, and the same applies to the remainder of his amendments as well. It seems to me the hon. member for Yeoville is not being quite consistent in his approach to this legislation. His argument during the Second Reading was aimed very strongly at, I could almost say, his over-obsession with the protection of purchasers of time-sharing rights involved here. It seems to me as if the hon. member is frustrating his own objectives as far as protection for the purchaser is concerned, by pleading as he did here in respect of his proposed amendments Nos. (2) and (3). The question is not whether it is desirable that this basis for property ownership should be included in the scope of this legislation. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing here with an existing situation. Time-sharing in respect of rented property is already being practised. If the hon. member is obsessed with the protection of the purchaser, he will have to concede that protection in this category of timesharing, if not more essential, is indeed at least just as essential and just as desirable as in cases where proprietary rights constitute the basis of time-sharing agreements.

I concede that the hon. member is correct in his general approach—this is the whole aim and object of this legislation—that we should be able to call the seller to account, but what his amendment really amounts to is that property time-sharing on the basis of leasehold should now be prohibited. We do not think this is desirable. Once this legislation has come into operation and we discover weaknesses in this particular regard, one could always reconsider it. I really think that today our point of departure should be the reality of the present situation, which is that this kind of transaction is not prohibited. The hon. member’s motion does not mean that this should be prohibited, but what will happen if his amendment is accepted, is that he is going to be placing the protection which is being negotiated here for purchasers in general out of the reach of this particular category of purchasers. I think this is undesirable and that is why I am saying that to a large extent he would be frustrating his own objectives. This is what it really amounts to, and I do not think it is desirable that this motion of the hon. member be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I should like at the outset to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I know he is being very sincere in trying to assist this Committee to improve this legislation, which I invited hon. members to do during the Second Reading debate.

*Viewed from that angle I gladly accept that hon. members want to co-operate in making this legislation as practicable as possible and in assisting to create the largest measure of security in law.

†Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to say that I accept the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I think it improves the Bill.

*In fact, it could probably serve a very useful purpose as well, since reference is made in clause 7(4) to the possible insolvency of a seller, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Yeoville.

†As far as the situation of normal leases is concerned the hon. member referred to the definition of “alienation”. It is not the intention that a normal, ordinary lease which has nothing to do with a time-sharing scheme should be within the ambit of the Bill. As I read the definition of “alienate” it has to do with a time-sharing interest. The operative words are “in relation to a time-sharing interest”. Alienation is therefore linked to a time-sharing scheme.

You should also have a look at paragraph (xvii) on page 4.

I shall have a look at it.

*The intention is not to insert here an ordinary contract of lease which has nothing to do with time-sharing schemes. In any event, the Minister is given the power later in the legislation to grant exemptions. If it were really to appear that this was a problem in practice, it would be very easy to say in future that ordinary contracts of lease are exempted from the provisions of the legislation. Therefore this ought not to be create a problem in practice.

I thank the hon. member for Sunday’s River for the arguments he advanced. With reference to them I want to say that the Government accepted as a basic principle that the alienation of a time-sharing interest ought not only to take place in those instances where the seller is the owner of the immovable property or where the seller holds the property in terms of a registered contract of lease. It is also the point of departure of the Government that the Bill ought not to contain a provision which would have the effect that the alienation of a time-sharing interest could only take place in terms of the Share Blocks Control Act, 1980, or the Sectional Title Act, 1971 but that it also ought to take place in terms of contracts of lease or club membership. My impression is—and I think the hon. members for Yeoville and Hillbrow and other hon. members, too, will concede this—is that these are schemes that already exist in practice. My question is now, if we were to introduce these limiting measures in terms of the proposals of the hon. member for Yeoville, what then of the existing schemes, because in practice this could give rise to disruption and hardship on the part of the developers or existing participants in the scheme. We specifically want to ensure, as I said in the Second Reading debate, that we do not cause disruption.

The principles I have now put forward have been common cause among all the interested parties and the Government throughout. They have at all times been put very clearly to those with whom we have negotiated.

In this sense, therefore, it is impossible for me to accept the hon. member’s amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 as printed in his name on the Order Paper, since all the proposals contained therein are aimed specifically at prohibiting the sale of a time-sharing interest by way of lease or by way of club membership. I indicated in the Second Reading debate that it would be very difficult for me to accept a proposal to that effect.

While I am speaking, I wish to move amendments Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 as printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. 6. On page 2, in line 40, after “means” to insert “(a)”.
2. 7. On page 4, in line 8, to omit “referred to in” and to substitute:
   based on the alienation of undivided shares in a unit as defined in section 1 of
3. 8. On page 4, in line 9, after “otherwise;” to insert:
   or
   (b) any scheme, arrangement or undertaking declared a property timesharing scheme by the Minister by notice in the Gazette for the purposes of this Act, in terms of which interests in the use or occupation of immovable property, or any portion or part thereof, defined in the notice, are sold or leased;
4. 9. On page 4, in line 24, to omit “recurrent” and to substitute “annual”.

As far as amendment No. 6 is concerned, it is being proposed that “(a)" be inserted with the view to the insertion as proposed in amendment No. 8.

As far as amendment No. 7 is concerned, I want to say that clause 1, which contains the definition of “property time-sharing schemes”, refers inter alia to a time-sharing development scheme as referred to in the Sectional Titles Act, 1971. In terms of the Act it is at present possible to register an undivided share in a sectional title unit in the Deeds Office in favour of the buyer of a time-sharing interest. In addition, it is not at present a requirement that the conditions with regard to the period during which the purchaser may exercise his rights in terms of this scheme, be defined in the title deed, and such a condition is contained in a separate agreement. In order to market the property time-sharing scheme successfully, it may be essential for developers that the recurrent period in which a buyer may occupy the unit from year to year, be adjusted, which would mean that from the point of view of the seller it would be impractical to bind a buyer to a specific period. By way of the above-mentioned method of registration, together with the use of the associated agreement as mentioned, such exchange of periods and the needs of the purchaser may be accommodated. However, in terms of the proposed amendments of the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, when such amendments come into operation it will be impossible for developers to adjust such a period from year to year, and it would be compulsory, in case of need, to mention a predetermined period as specified on a little deed, and let it be available to the purchaser in this way with regard to the exercise of his right of occupation. Since the proposed definition of the timesharing development scheme in the proposed Sectional Title Amendment Act of 1983 at present only forms part of a specific recurrent period, and does not also provide that such a recurrent period may be determined, and may therefore give rise to a problem, this means that if a developer does link specifiable periods, viz. varying periods, to the scheme, that property time-sharing scheme would by definition not fall within the provisions of the amending legislation on sectional titles. This would have the effect that if the specific reference in the definition of property time-sharing schemes in the Property Time-Sharing Bill is retained in the legislation on sectional titles, any scheme in which varying periods were used would also not fall within the ambit of the Property Time-Sharing Control Bill. To ensure that all property time-sharing schemes are subject to the provisions of the Bill at present before us, the words “referred to in” are being replaced by the words “based on the alienation of undivided shares in a unit as defined in section 1”.

As far as amendment 8 is concerned, due to the diverse nature of existing schemes, it is desirable that the Minister be granted the power to declare any arrangement, scheme or undertaking in terms of which there is an interest in the use or occupation of immovable property, to be a property time-sharing scheme. This provision is being inserted in the Bill by way of the amendment I have moved. This may also help to improve the situation in view, too, of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Yeoville.

The last amendment to this clause relates to paragraph (xvii), the definition of “timesharing interest”. This refers to a specific recurrent period which implies that the period in question, whether determined or undetermined, must be recurrent. It has become evident that there are property time-sharing schemes in which the period involved is not of a recurrent nature as intended here. For example, the example is mentioned in which the purchaser may occupy in January, February and March during the first year and in February, June and September the subsequent year. In order to provide for this situation it is necessary to replace the word “recurrent” in the definition of “time-sharing interest” by the word “annual”. In other words, this refers to annual rather than specific recurrent periods.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal firstly with the amendments moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I have no problems with amendments Nos. 6 and 7 as printed on page 286 of the Order Paper, but I should like to raise a couple of issues with the hon. the Deputy Minister on amendments Nos. 8 and 9.

The amendment which the hon. the Deputy Minister moved, to my mind creates confusion and a problem. I was waiting to hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister actually had in mind in relation to this amendment. If what he had in mind, and I understood him correctly, was that one could have a scheme whereby one occupies in, say, January one year, March the next year and October the following year and that therefore it is not a period which is repeated every time, then it is clear that an amendment is required. However, my difficulty is that I do not think the amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister covers this. If the word “recurrent” is substituted by “annual” the definition would read—

What I think the hon. the Deputy Minister actually means is a “determined or determinable period during any particular year”. It is not a determinable “annual period” because a determinable “annual period” means something quite different in English. I have had a look at the Afrikaans text of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment, and there I think we have the same problem, because there we have “’n bepaalde of bepaalbare jaarlikse tydperk.”

*Actually the hon. the Deputy Minister does not, however, mean an annual period. He means a certain period during a particular year. If the hon. the Deputy Minister were to be agreeable, I should like to move an amendment which would read as follows in English—

† I think that is really what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to achieve, judging by what he explained the situation to be. There I have no difficulty with him. I agree on the object he wants to achieve.

Are you referring to “in succeeding years”?

I am referring to a period during any particular year. It is not an annual period, because one is not letting the accommodation for an annual period. In this case one is only letting it for a week in a particular year. So it is not an annual period. It is just a matter of getting the words correct, and I think we should be able to agree on the correct words, because I do agree with what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to achieve. Perhaps his officials can think about that whilst we talk about something else.

I have a problem with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s 8th amendment. I agree with the spirit of the amendment, but I would imagine that before the hon. the Minister would declare a particular scheme to be a property time-sharing scheme, he would give some kind of notice to the people concerned enabling them to make representations. One has the provision in the Trade Practices Act that before one actually makes any practice apply, one usually gives people an opportunity of making representations. I think that is what should apply here, because one could have the hon. the Minister, because of certain facts he has been told, issuing a notice in the Gazette, while the situation may subsequently turn out to be quite different. I know that in spirit the hon. the Deputy Minister is wanting to make sure that there is not some clever smart-alec who evolves a scheme that is not covered by the Act but who can then use the Act in order to apply it. I agree with that principle completely, but I think that we have to make sure that we do not make moves that are based on a one sided position that is put to the hon. the Minister. I do not intend to move an amendment in this regard, but I would like two things from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Firstly I should like him, before he exercises his power, to give an undertaking that he will give people an opportunity of making representations to him, particularly those he seeks to affect by this proposal. Secondly, I would like him to give consideration, before we return to Parliament next year, to actually changing this in order to bring it into line with the sort of procedure in the Trade Practices legislation so as to ensure that one does not have notices issued without people having an opportunity to make representations.

Now I should like to deal with my amendment. In this regard I must say that I am very unhappy with what the hon. the Deputy Minister says is the Government’s approach. He says the Government has decided that it thinks that time-sharing schemes based on clubs and leases are actually desirable. I cannot, however, think of anything worse, and that they should think it is desirable, after the experiences with this internationally, is beyond me. I can understand it if he says that he cannot do anything about it now in this piece of legislation, and will try and do something about it in the future, but I cannot understand that that is now the Government’s policy. I say this because the reality is that people can be sold time-sharing schemes whilst the man who sells it to them has no title, does not own the property concerned and may himself only have a lease of up to five years for the property. So if he does not pay the rent, the people who have paid him the money for the time-sharing scheme lose everything they have paid to him, because the lease is cancelled. If the owner of the property has a mortgage bond and does not make his bond payments, the property may be sold and then it is also a problem. With great respect, I cannot see that one can allow a situation to develop in which the public can possibly be exploited in this fashion. My feeling is that nobody who is not the owner of the property should be allowed to participate in a time-sharing scheme. That is the first premise. I shall make such a proposal a little later on. Merely to have a short lease and then to start selling off time-sharing units to my mind smells of a racket, and we should not be party to something that smells of a racket. Then to have the position where the man himself has only got a lease and no title is, I think, utterly undesirable.

The hon. member for Algoa said he could not understand my attitude in not wanting to include leases here. What he does not understand is that I do not want leases included in the concept of time-sharing. I want them to be prohibited. All one needs is to have a normal leasing position. If someone hires the property, that is fine. However, I do not want a time-sharing scheme where there is only a lease. I think the hon. member has not understood me correctly in that regard.

Finally, there is a point concerning which I regret the hon. the Deputy Minister has not given an explanation. If one looks at the definitions of “alienate”, “property time-sharing scheme” and “time-sharing interest” then one sees that they are applicable to every lease. The definition of “time-sharing interest”, contained in paragraph (xvii)—that is the one which I suggested earlier should be altered in respect of the “annual” consideration—reads—

Whether it be during an annual period, a recurrent period or, as I suggested, a period during any particular year, that is what a lease is. Let us then take the position where a person hires a house in Waterkloof, for instance. After the election and with the PFP there, that will become a very desirable area. It is already desirable, but with the PFP there property prices are going to soar.

That will never happen.

Just stay away from Verwoerdburg.

I am trying to protect the voters of Verwoerdburg as well. If anybody wants to hire a house for three months in Verwoerdburg, he will suddenly be subject to the time-sharing scheme. It does not matter whether it is for three months, one year, two years, three years or five years. I do not think that that is the intention and I am sure that that is not what the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to do. I think he needs to look at this. If only hon. members opposite would occasionally listen to the voice of the Opposition and refer a Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading, they could remedy all these problems.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville has just replied to one of my questions. He stated categorically that what he actually wanted from the hon. the Deputy Minister today, was for him to introduce legislation which prohibited any property time-sharing scheme where the seller was not the owner. His standpoint in this connection is now clear. However, it is also clear that that specific aim of his cannot be achieved in this legislation. He cannot move such an amendment. It will therefore have to be done on another occasion or in another way.

Say, for argument’s sake, that this were to be done, or—to put it another way—that at this stage we did not extend this protection to that category of buyers. Then there would be a shortcoming, because this would mean that a large number of people who have already gained rights on this basis would not fall within the ambit of the protection this legislation will afford. In the spirit of the hon. member’s speech in the Second Reading debate, a speech for which we had great sympathy, I just want to say that to a great extent he would actually be destroying his own objective in this regard, if he were to exclude this category of buyers from the protection envisaged.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the three points that are under discussion now, I must say that I support the hon. member for Yeoville. Firstly, with regard to the last amendment of the hon. the Deputy Minister, we must not just assume that a person may take only one week a year. He may decide to take two weeks, one week in January and one week in June at a place such as Umhlanga Rocks. He is not tied to one particular week. He gets his title on that basis. Perhaps the original word “recurrent” may be even better than the word “annual” because I place the same meaning on the word “annual” as the hon. member for Yeoville because it means that it is being let for a year. An annual lease means for a year. If one talks about a monthly lease it is for a period of a month. If it is a weekly lease it is for a period of one week. That is the normal meaning in English. Therefore we can either leave it as “recurrent” or we could say “a recurrent period during any one year”. I do not know whether that would meet the hon. the Deputy Minister’s problem.

Then when it comes to the question of “or lease” I again support the hon. member for Yeoville. If one is going to lease a unit for a week over a period of three years, as is contemplated in the legislation, one enters a proper leasing agreement. Leasing in law, as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, means hiring, whereas what we are dealing with here is purchasing. There is a marked distinction between purchase and lease. When one purchases one gets title but if one is leasing one never becomes the owner of the property. One can have a 10 year lease or even a longer lease, but one is never the owner. The owner always remains the owner. In this legislation we are not contemplating that sort of thing. People will pay a purchase price and are going to become the owner. That is the whole idea. So, quite frankly, I think it defeats the whole object when we talk about leases. A lease can be entered into by way of an ordinary agreement of lease, but if the lease is to be for a period of more than three years, it will fall under the provisions of this Bill, which really means that one is looking for title of some kind.

With regard to a club the definition states that—

Therefore we are not simply visualizing the position where people who have a building call themselves a club. We are visualizing a club to be a place that promotes activities and functions and may have rooms which one can hire. I think we are playing with fire here because clubs are the sort of organizations which have to subsidize large tracts of land—sporting and recreational areas. A golf club, for example, covers a great deal of land that requires a tremendous amount of maintenance. It is actually run at a loss. Clubs continually have to impose subsidies, levies etc. A local authority or other organization has often to take over a club because it cannot survive. Even although its members pay their dues it is difficult for it to survive financially. Therefore I think that we are playing with fire if we are going to allow time-sharing schemes in regard to clubs. I therefore agree with the amendments as moved by the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the arguments put forward by both the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member for Hillbrow supported the hon. member for Yeoville.

*I also thank the hon. member for Sundays River for his participation in this debate concerning the specific amendments with which I, too, want to associate myself.

†As regards the suggestion that was made by the hon. member for Yeoville with regard to amendment No. 9, especially as far as the English version is concerned, it would appear to me that the hon. member has a point. I am prepared to accept the change in this amendment if he will give it to me in writing.

*The argument advanced by the hon. member concerning the annual recurrent period and the need to establish certainty in that regard, can, I think, place the matter beyond all doubt.

As regards the request of the hon. member for Yeoville concerning amendment No. 8, I want to give him the assurance that no scheme will be summarily declared a scheme before the developer concerned or the party concerned who will be affected, is informed of the intention to make a declaration to establish a time-sharing scheme, and I shall then afford those involved the opportunity first to address representations as to why this should not be done.

†I do not think I used the word “desirable” as the hon. member suggested, in respect of lease or club membership.

When we come to clause 4— the question of the full disclosure of a contract and the particulars contained in that contract—I am sure the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Hillbrow will agree that the purchaser and the participants in such schemes will know full well what their rights are in terms of this measure.

*I wish to state very clearly that we do not want undesirable practices. Nor do we want undesirable schemes. On the other hand, however, it is also pointless closing our eyes to schemes that already exist in practice. Accordingly we must take reality into account. In addition to this I want today to the hon. member for Yeoville that in the proposed clause 12(l)(d)—in regard to which I also intend to move an insertion—we shall certainly have to look at that very closely in order to limit undesirable practices. As I indicated during the Second Reading Stage, we shall give ongoing attention to these matters to ensure that the consumers do not suffer harm or endure hardships.

†As far as the definition of the “alienation” is concerned, as well as the question of the lease itself, the hon. members have highlighted certain points.

*Mr. Chairman, in my humble opinion one could argue, merely on the basis of the words that appear there, that all contracts of lease could now, for the sake of argument, be included. However, if we see this within the context of this legislation, then surely it cannot be interpreted as such. After all, the hon. member is a person who often deals with these matters. I believe that the first aspect the hon. member would mention is that we must view this matter within the context of the legislation. I therefore believe that the regulations that will be made under this clause and under the legislation as a whole will be absolutely decisive and that there can accordingly be no doubt in that regard.

Surely it cannot simply be the intention to cause a person who rents a house for a period of three months—when it is a purely normal rent—or even a man who rents a house in Acacia Park, to fall under a timesharing scheme. That can never be the intention. However, I shall probably take another look at this.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that I have now replied in full to all the arguments.

Amendment 9, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

This amendment, I believe, replaces amendment No. 9 moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Chairman, in order to make it quite clear, I shall read the whole of it as it will read after the amendment has been effected. It will now read—

I do not want to prolong the debate unduly, Mr. Chairman. The difficulty I have however, is that it is true that everything has to be read in the context of the legislation. The context of the legislation, however, unfortunately includes all leases. I think that what is going to have to happen is that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have to use his exemptive powers, which are contained later in the lease, in order to make it clear that where there is a continuous period of occupation, which is a normal lease, that is not covered by the scheme. I think that that is the only way in which we are going to get out of it in terms of this particular piece of legislation.

As far as the rest of the amendments are concerned, I know that the hon. the Deputy Minister will not accept them. I have put my case and I do not see very much point in discussing it any further. All I want to say is that I want to make the forecast now that the hon. the Deputy Minister will come back to this House—if it is not he then it will be somebody else; perhaps by then he may have gained promotion; I hope so—and remove clubs and leases from the time-sharing provisions because they are going to be used to exploit the public and they are going to cause hardship to the public. International experience has shown this. I hope that we will be spared it but, unfortunately, these things always strike us a little later. I know this is going to happen and I shall simply then have to resist the temptation of saying “I told you so”.

Mr. Chairman, to conclude the discussion of this clause I just want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that we do not want the public to be exploited. We do not want undesirable practices either and I shall constantly guard against this. I also want to say here and now that I invite every person with an interest in this scheme and every consumer in our country who experiences any problems, to submit full details of their complaints and problems to the department. My intention here is to create security of justice and to ensure that the public is not exploited.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 negatived and amendment 3 dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment 4 negatived and amendment 5 dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments 6 to 8 agreed to.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

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

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that there will be no time-sharing schemes that are not subject either to the share-block scheme or the Sectional Titles Act. This means that the man will get a share in relation to the title he possesses and he will have that share subject to the safeguards of the Share Blocks Control Act. This can be done very easily because one can have a share in respect of every week of the year, and that is what the title will be. Then the control of that whole building will be subject to all the safeguards of the Shares Block Control Act. If that is not done, then there is the sectional title legislation in terms of which at the present moment he can hold an undivided share. We have been told that that legislation will be amended which will in effect facilitate this to some extent.

I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept this amendment because he seems to think that it should not be limited in this regard, but we actually consider this to be one of the fundamentals in the whole situation. I want to repeat that the legislation has to have three aims. Firstly, to control the representations that can be made so that there will not be misleading representations to induce people to buy. Secondly, to control the form of contract that has to be entered into to make sure that the purchaser is protected; and, thirdly, that the man gets title. One and two are being dealt with; maybe not completely to our satisfaction, but they are being dealt with. Without the acceptance of this amendment, three is not dealt with at all. One will therefore continue to have exploitation and one will continue to have losses. Those problems will continue until one accepts the concept that a man must have title if he is going to participate in this.

Mr. Chairman, we have actually debated this and discussed the arguments under clause 1. The proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville actually impinges on the already stated principle, namely that the intention is to allow alienation of a time-sharing interest in a manner other than the alienation of shareblocks and sectional title units. The effect of the amendments proposed by the hon. member would be that a time-sharing interest would only be alienable in terms of the Share-Blocks Act, 1981, and the Sectional Titles Act, and for that reason, as the hon. member will understand, I cannot accept this amendment either. I want to thank the hon. member for the contribution he has made in this connection.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

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

1. 1. On page 4, in lines 48 to 52, to omit paragraph (d) and to substitute:
   (d) a statement that the seller is the owner of the immovable property and a reference to the title deed or that the seller holds the property in terms of a registered lease obtained by him from the State or a local authority which has at least 30 years to run and a reference to the registration of such lease;
2. 2. On page 4, in lines 53 to 54, to omit paragraph (e).
3. 3. On page 6, after line 22, to insert:
   (n) a statement as to the official language chosen by the purchaser in terms of section 3.
4. 4. On page 6, in line 24, to omit “five” and to substitute “three”.

I have indicated already that in my view nobody who is not the owner of immovable property should be allowed to participate in a scheme of-a—time-sharing nature. I explained that if one allows somebody other than the owner to do it, one is jeopardizing the person who buys the interest in the timesharing scheme. I gave the example as to what could happen. A man can have a lease, he does not pay the rent himself and then the people who bought the time-sharing scheme loses everything. I think that whatever other merit there may be in negotiating leases for time-sharing schemes, it is highly undesirable that a person who is not the owner should be allowed to participate in such a scheme. That is why I think this is important.

I have also covered the situation of a man who has a registered lease from the State or a local authority because that falls into a different category. We have the Durban beachfront properties which for example fall into that category where the leases have far in excess of 30 years to run when the scheme is entered into. That part I have covered.

In regard to the second amendment which seeks the deletion of paragraph (e) I must point out that it follows from the first amendment because if one has to be the owner, then one gives one’s name and one does not have to give the name of the person who is the owner. The second amendment is therefore a consequential amendment upon the first one.

The third amendment seeks the insertion of a statement as to the official language chosen by the purchaser in terms of clause 3. I think clause 3 on its own where it provides that a purchaser is entitled to choose the official language in which the contract shall be drawn up is inadequate because how does one know what he has chosen? When he is given a contract to sign, then he will just be told to sign and the seller will say that that was what he chose to sign. I think it must be made clear that he himself must see that there is a statement showing that he has chosen to enter into a contract in either English or Afrikaans. Therefore I believe that that should be inserted.

The fourth amendment deals with the question of the date which is stated in terms of subsection (l) (k). If one refers to subsection (l) (k) one sees that one is allowed to enter into time-sharing schemes even if the building is not even there yet. One therefore has a situation that a man has to wait for years before anything is there at all. In the meantime he has paid his money. The view which I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with—I believe he does—is that three years is enough for anybody to deal with this. In other words, if there is no building when he pays then the building should be completed within three years. An architect should be able to certify that it will be completed within three years. If it is going to last longer then it is obvious that the developer either has no intention of finishing it or alternatively does not have the money. In that case the buyer is going to lose his money in any case. There is no reason why money should be held sterile in this form for that period of time. One has to have some period and three years seems to me to be a reasonable period for somebody to get a contract concluded and the building completed. That is why I chose three years. I would prefer it to be less than three years, but, to be reasonable, that appears to be a period which should be acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I want to react to the four amendments in reverse order. I want to begin, therefore, by referring to the fourth amendment, i.e. the shortening of the period from five years to three years. I also referred to this aspect in my Second Reading speech. I want to support the hon. member for Yeoville in this connection. I believe that even three years is a little too long, but under the circumstances it is a good compromise.

The third amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville deals with the question of the language. I agree with the hon. member that it would be preferable. The example to which I referred in my Second Reading speech is also one which is in both languages. I think that is quite correct.

As far as the hon. member’s first two amendments are concerned, the argument is the same as we had in respect of clauses 1 and 2.1 should not like us at this stage to restrict the free market system in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say, in support of the hon. member for Paarl and with reference to the amendments moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, that his fourth amendment is acceptable to me. In fact, it would be desirable if the period could be made shorter than three years. However, I think it will be necessary in practice to have a period which is not shorter than three years.

I also agree with the hon. member’s third amendment, namely the insertion of a statement with regard to the official language which the buyer has chosen in terms of section 3. That is also acceptable.

As far as the hon. member’s first two amendments are concerned, we have debated the point on several occasions. Without taking up the time of the House unnecessarily, I want to say that unfortunately I cannot accept these two amendments, on the basis of the arguments we have already advanced. The implication of what the hon. member is proposing here is, of course, that a real right will have to be given to a buyer in such a case. Unfortunately, I cannot agree to this and accept the hon. member’s amendment. However, we shall keep a close watch on the matter to see how it develops in practice.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate, not only on these amendments, but also on the amendments which the hon. member for Yeoville moved on clauses 1 and 2. I must say that we have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. member for Yeoville is saying, namely that there should be the greatest amount of protection possible for people who buy into time-sharing schemes. However, I am inclined to agree with the hon. members on the Government benches and also with the hon. the Deputy Minister in that as far as this legislation is concerned we believe that we would not like to restrict the free enterprise system, but rather to make sure that there are certain controls which prevent people from acting in a manner where those who are buying are going to be prejudiced for a number of reasons which the hon. member for Yeoville has mentioned. It is for this reason that we have not gone along with the amendments in regard to eliminating, first of all, for instance clubs, etc. One thing that bothers us also is what is to happen to those schemes that are already established. They are at present in operation.

They are not affected. They are vested interests and the Act is not retrospective.

Since it is not retrospective, in no way will any of the provisions in this legislation then be applicable to the schemes already in existence. That is another reason why we find difficulty in supporting the hon. member for Yeoville, althought I do agree with him when he says that the hon. the Minister is going to come back to this House with amendments in an attempt to protect those people still further. So we go along with the third and fourth amendments but we shall not be able to support the first and second amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose one should not be ungracious when the hon. the Deputy Minister accepts two out of four amendments on a particular clause. I am indeed indebted to him for that, but the hon. member for Paarl and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti started up a completely new argument that I rather enjoy. They said one must not do this because of the free-enterprise sytem. They said one must allow free enterprise to run its course. Well, that is enough to set me going …

Oh, for heaven’s sake!

With great respect, free enterprise is not a jungle where, in fact, the rich and the powerful are the ones who succeed. The function of this House, of Parliament, of a Government, is to see to it that there is a set of rules in terms of which even the weak are protected, even the people who are not so sophisticated, even the people who are not so smart. [Interjections.] That is what this is all about. In reality the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, in particular—I do not know about the hon. member for Paarl, because perhaps he was just carried away for a moment—symbolizes the ugly face of capitalism. [Interjections.] He does not want rules. He wants freedom in which there can be exploitation. This is where we differ. I am surprised that he supports this legislation at all, because he does not want any control. He wants a free-for-all. So why does he vote for this Bill? He is really way out! He comes along and pays lip-service to some things that have to be done, but when it comes to the crunch, the mask slips and one sees the ugly face of capitalism. [Interjections.] Capitalism does have a function, and there are indeed attractive sides to free enterprise, but that hon. member and his party are not part of that attractive side. That is what is wrong. [Interjections.] Well, let me now get back to the Bill. [Interjections.]

We have up to now had a very reasonable discussion with the hon. the Deputy Minister and I should like to continue in that vein. What I want to try to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that the argument in regard to clause 1—which he has not accepted—is that there should not be any timesharing scheme if such time-sharing scheme is attached to a lease. That is not, however, the argument applicable here. The argument here is different. The argument here is that the seller should be the owner, but the seller can grant a lease as part of the time-sharing scheme, even though the concept has been rejected that a lessee should not grant a lease. In other words, my argument has two legs to it. The first is that a time-sharing scheme should not, in itself, be a lease. That has been rejected in the discussion on clause 1 and I am bound by that, so that is the end of that, but here there is a different issue at stake. What is at issue here is who should grant a time-sharing scheme, whether in the form of a lease, sectional title or a share in a share-block scheme …

Or in a club.

… or in a club, for that matter. As far as that is concerned, I cannot see why the person granting it should not be the owner and why there should not be that protection. I cannot see why a person who merely has a short lease should, in fact, be allowed to grant a time-sharing scheme. I therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to reconsider the matter. He has not, as I have said, accepted the other leg of my argument, but this leg of my argument is quite a separate leg. I believe it could be accepted and would offer some protection to the people participating in such a scheme. It would mean that the man who gets a timesharing scheme may only have a leasehold interest. He may not have a share in a shareblock scheme, he may not have sectional title, but at least the man who grants it is the owner. The person electing the share-block scheme therefore knows he is dealing with the owner and not some fly-by-night who just has a short lease.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to start discussing capitalism with the hon. member, for then we would be here all day.

That was a private argument.

But he is a socialist.

The hon. member for Brits is right. That is the position from which the hon. member argues, but he is entitled to do so. I have no problem with the point of view from which he approaches the matter.

Perhaps I should just repeat the reply I gave to his first amendment. The way we argued it, it is not the idea that a buyer should obtain a real right in respect of a time-sharing interest. In my opinion, the hon. member’s amendment has the implication that the buyer should be given a real right. I believe, therefore, that the hon. member wants the buyer to have a real right at all times, because the hon. member referred to 30-year leases, which from the nature of the case are registered leases. Should a lease be given to a prospective participant for such a long period? Our interpretation is that it is a real right which the hon. member has in mind here, and that is why we believe that we should not accept his amendment.

You do not understand what I am saying.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot allow the hon. member for Yeoville to get away with his comments. There is an old saying: Methinks he protesteth too much. I wonder what that hon. member is trying to hide. It is not the case that we represent the ugly side of capitalism. That hon. member is a social democrat. He wants to restrict the free enterprise system. He wants to restrict the initiative of individuals to his way of thinking, and his way alone. As I said when I last took part, we do not believe that we should pass legislation which restricts the free enterprise initiative of individuals. What we believe we should do, however, is to draw up a set of rules so that, whatever enterprise the individual initiates, it will not be operated in a manner which will represent the ugly side of capitalism to which that hon. member referred. What we want to do is to protect the public. We want to make sure that that ugly side of capitalism to which he referred does not succeed in its objective of either defrauding people or “ripping them off’ as it is said. So, I reject totally what that hon. member has said. I think it was bad manners on his part to react the way he did when I said I sympathised very much with his concern that in the case of clubs and other types of time-sharing there was possibly an opportunity for people to be cheated by those who represent the ugly side of capitalism.

Mr. Chairman, in further support of the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville, let me say that I think that the whole idea is to assist people and to see that they do not lose their money.

We are all in agreement that people should not lose their money.

Yes, we are all in agreement on that. I am just afraid that we are going to encourage fly-by-nights. People can get a lease on a property for a short period and then enter into agreements of alienation. They will then enter into lease agreements, let the accommodation, take the money and disappear. One will never see them again and one will not even know whether they were the registered owners, because they do not have to show their title deeds. One will not even know for what term they acquired the lease. They may have it for a short period only. We are not ensuring the stability of the person who is giving the contract, and that is what it is all about.

Amendment 1 negatived and amendment 2 dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments 3 and 4 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

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

The concept I have put forward here is that at the present moment there is only power to prescribe what should be in an advertisement. I think there should also be the power to prescribe what should not be in an advertisement. I would suggest that the hon. the Minister would welcome such a power.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to his amendment, I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that despite his bad manners, I support his amendment.

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

What I am now saying is that I do not want to see a scheme in regard to which the certificate under section 7 has not been granted. A person may now have to wait for three years before permission is given for the scheme and yet people are already advertising. What I am asking for is that they may not advertise until they get the certificate.

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

1. 2. On page 6, in line 62, to omit “R500” and to substitute “R1 000”.
2. 3. On page 6, in line 63, to omit “six months” and to substitute “one year”.

In the Second Reading debate I referred to the need for particulars to be given as fully as possible in advertisement for time-sharing schemes. I just feel that the penalty clause as it appears in the present Bill is insufficient, and I wish to move that the penalty be doubled from R500 to R1 000 and from six months to 12 months. I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that we fully agree with him that our basic concern is to protect the interests of the buyer. If the advertisements in respect of time-sharing schemes are as detailed as possible, I think people will know exactly what they are buying. Then we shall eliminate most of the problems in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, there are two aspects of this matter which we should investigate and to which we should find a solution for ourselves. The first is the merit of the amendment and whether it is desirable in principle to have a provision which prohibits advertisements until that certificate has been issued. If the hon. member had wanted to suggest something of this nature, and if it had had any merit, I suppose one could have had to effect a substantive insention to that effect elsewhere in this legislation. However, I also submit that it is not desirable and that the hon. member’s amendment does not have any merit. We deliberated the principle at length in the case of the other two Acts which provide similar protection for the buyers, namely the Share Block Act and the Alienation of Land Act. There we decided that it was not desirable to exercise control in this respect, but that other methods should be written in to restrain the seller and to protect the buyer in that way. I think the same will be found to apply here, i.e., that it is not desirable or necessary. In fact, I believe there is less need for it here than in the case of the alienation of land and in the case of share blocks.

The way I understand the hon. member’s amendment, it would have the effect that it would be in order to advertise after a certificate has been issued, but not before. This means that as soon as a certificate has been issued—this is the only criterion which the hon. member can apply—protection of this kind is no longer necessary. It means, therefore, that anything under the sun could be said in his advertisements, and it will be permissible. I believe that this would result in an intolerable situation. Therefore I am not of the opinion that we should accept it.

As regards the proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville that the allegations or claims which may not be made in an advertisement should also be prescribed, I simply do not know how this would be possible. I believe that one should be positive in legislation; what the hon. member is proposing is a negative kind of prescription. To draw up a detailed catalogue and to reach consensus in this House about everything that may and may not be inserted in an advertisement—perhaps by way of regulation—would in my opinion be to attempt the impossible. I therefore want to suggest that the proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville in this connection should not be accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the public would feel rather more secure if they knew they enjoyed the protection of the law and that if somebody should advertise a scheme they would have the certificate to assure them that everything was all right. If people are going to be allowed to advertise before a scheme has been approved, they will obviously want to collect their money. They will not advertise now and wait until the scheme yields money in two or three years’ time. People are therefore going to pay deposits now, money which will have to lie in trust for up to three years, or whatever the case may be.

It is for that reason, I believe, that we should co-ordinate advertisements with a certificate.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the first amendment, that of the hon. member for Yeoville, I wish to thank the hon. member for Sundays River and the hon. member for Paarl for their contributions in this connection and to the discussion of the clause and the amendments in general.

The amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is not acceptable to me, because it is aimed at prescribing by way of regulation which allegations may not be contained in an advertisement for a property time-sharing scheme. Surely this could be very confusing. What would be excluded in the process of stipulating what may not be included? It could be interpreted to mean that anything could be included, without any regard to the regulations which will be published in terms of the legislation. I pointed out in the Second Reading debate that section 9 of the Trade Practices Act prohibited any advertisement that was substantially false or misleading. In addition, there are commonlaw remedies with regard to such misleading statements. It is my submission, therefore, that that particular section of that Act covers this problem of the hon. member for Yeoville. I trust that he will accept this. Naturally, one will have to keep a close watch on the way in which developers go about advertising.

I believe that the proposals of the hon. member for Paarl constitute an improvement to the measure, and I take pleasure in accepting them.

As regards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, I believe that the hon. member for Sundays River has given him an adequate reply on that. If the advertisement may only be placed after the certificate in terms of clause 7(1) has been issued, it could have the effect that the seller could advertise a time-sharing interest, after the issuing of that certificate by the architect, without complying with the requirements concerning the other information which he has to disclose. The way the clause is worded at the moment, an advertisement has to contain the prescribed information at any stage whatsoever. Therefore I really cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. In fact, I doubt very strongly whether the hon. member himself is convinced of the validity of his arguments in this connection.

Mr. Chairman, I just rise to say that we are going to support the amendments moved by the hon. member for Paarl. I wonder, however, whether the hon. member for Hillbrow’s amendment No. 4 should not be inserted after “interest” in line 57 rather than after “shall”, where he has suggested it should be inserted. It would then read—

I suggest that that is where those words should have been inserted.

Amendment 1 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendments 2 and 3 agreed to.

Amendment 4 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

These amendments seek to ensure that there is compliance with a town planning scheme and also with any by-laws of the local authority that may be applicable.

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

In terms of the existing legislation, one can either have the money in a trust account or alternatively a guarantee can be furnished. This enables the parties concerned to earn interest for their own account, particularly as Law Society rules prescribe that money in the trust account of an attorney accrues to the fidelity fund. Under those circumstances the parties themselves will be protected if there is a joint savings account.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be able to say that I will accept the amendments moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow. However, I am unfortunately not able to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. Once again it is a question of 50%. On a previous clause I accepted two out of four amendments by the hon. member for Yeoville so we are still working on a basis of 50%.

*My principal objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville is that in my opinion, and according to the advice I have obtained, the money paid into such an account would form part of the personal assets of the persons in whose names the accounts are. There is also the dilemma that it would not afford the parties the protection which would be afforded by a trust account under normal circumstances, as provided for in the clause. I also have problems at the moment with the practical implementation of the proposal. It could give rise to the opening of literally hundreds of savings accounts in respect of one development project.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member raised this matter during the Second Reading debate and also during the debate on the amending legislation dealing with the alienation of land. In that particular debate I indicated to the hon. member that we would have a look at the principle contained in the suggestion with a view possibly to introducing it into that legislation as well. Therefore, I want to tell the hon. member that I shall again give positive attention to the idea contained in his amendment. At this stage, however, I am unfortunately not able to accept the amendment.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment 2 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

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

The intention with the amendment is to provide for the necessary remedies to exist if a provision of a regulation is contravened. All the possible abuses cannot be foreseen in the legislation, and therefore there must be teeth to deal with a contravention of regulations.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches shall support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nelspruit. If anything, I think what he has moved strengthens the need for the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper and which I move as follows—

1. 2. On page 8, in line 56, after “circumstances” to insert:
   if the provisions of section 4(l)(h) were not complied with in the contract
2. 3. On page 8, in line 57, after “contract” to insert:
   if the non-compliance was of a trivial nature or was due to error
3. 4. On page 8, in line 59, to omit paragraph (d).

The three amendments are intended to bring greater clarity and certainty in regard to the remedy which is available and to make sure that people know before they go to court what may happen. In this particular case, as the clause reads at the moment, the court is at large because nobody knows as to what happens. If for instance, one brings a contravention of clause 3 because the agreement is not in the official language chosen by the purchaser, what is going to happen? What is the court going to do? Is the court going to declare it void? Is the court going to grant rectification, and if so, what rectification does it grant? Will the purchaser be given a translation of the agreement? It really does not solve the problem. There could also be contraventions of clause 4(1). The issue there is that which of these things will happen will depend on which one of the breaches referred to in clause 4(1) is applicable. A man therefore does not know when he goes to court whether the rate of interest is going to be changed, whether there is going to be rectification or whether the whole contract is going to be declared void.

Then, of course, there is the question of alternative relief. I believe and I want to submit that the rate of interest should only be changed and reduced, as is obviously implied here, if the interest provisions have been contravened. Those provisions are contained in clause 4(l)(h). That is why my first amendment is moved.

I now come to my second amendment. Clause 8(l)(b) provides for the granting of an order for rectification of the contract. In terms of my amendment two things are suggested: Either the non-compliance was of a trivial nature or there was an error. The reason why I include the term “error” is that the common law basis of rectification is if there is in fact an error. That is why this amendment which seeks the insertion of “error” should be accepted. Rectification should be limited to where there is non-compliance of a trivial nature or where there was an error.

The third amendment seeks the deletion of paragraph (d). If this paragraph is deleted, the court would be at large to grant any remedy whatsoever.

As I indicated in the Second Reading debate it is not like asking for further alternative relief in a prayer to a summons; it is quite a different thing when it is contained in a statute. That is why I move the three amendments.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to indicate that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nelspruit is acceptable. I wish to thank him for this contribution to the improvement of the Bill.

I have listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. In the introductory part of clause 8(1) it is provided that if the provisions of clause 4(1), inter alia— including the subsections of clause 4(1), therefore—are not substantially complied with, any court has the powers set out in the remainder of the clause. I believe, therefore, and I have been advised accordingly, that a further reference to the provisions of clause 4(1) is technically not in order. Consequently I shall not accept it.

As far as the hon. member’s third amendment is concerned, I believe that there are enough precedents with regard to the circumstances under which an application can be made to a court for rectification of a contract, and that the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. member, namely “if the non-compliance was of a trivial nature or was due to error”, may have the effect that the existing right of a party who wishes to avail himself of this remedy may be curtailed. With all due respect to the hon. member, I want to say that I believe that a reference to “trivial nature” could be vague and confusing and is likely to lead only to uncertainty in law. The Sale of Land on Instalments Act of 1971, as amended and replaced by the Alienation of Land Act, has contained basically the same principle since 1971, and I am not aware of any problems ever having been caused by this in practice.

As far as the hon. member’s fourth amendment is concerned, namely that the reference to alternative relief be deleted, I should like to point out that the intention of clause 8 of the Bill is to rectify a contract which is not in order, or if it cannot be formally rectified, to declare such a contract to be void. In my opinion, paragraph (d) could not be used under any circumstances to rewrite the existing contract and any other relief which a court may consider must fall within the ambit of the other provisions of clause 8. Moreover, the eiusdem generis rule with regard to the interpretation of statutes would probably apply here, which would in any case restrict the general meaning of the words of clause 8. Therefore, as in the case of the other two amendments, I regret that I cannot accept this amendment of the hon. member either.

Mr. Chairman, I must obviously express my disappointment at the approach of the hon. the Deputy Minister. With respect, I find it a little difficult to understand. I should like to put a very simple point to the hon. the Deputy Minister. He refers to the provisions of subsection 8(1), which reads—

Let us deal with section 3. Section 3 reads as follows—

Would somebody like to tell me what does it mean to not substantially have a contract drawn up in the official language which a person has chosen? Either it is in that language or it is not. I do not understand how it could possibly be. If it is not drawn up in a specific language, I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what he actually thinks the court should do. In other words, if a man goes to court and says that he chose to have the contract in English and he was given an Afrikaans one to sign—he has no other complaint—what is the court going to do? I should like somebody to tell me.

They will give him another one in Afrikaans.

That is right, they will give him another one in Afrikaans even though he wanted an English one in the first place. I should like somebody to tell me what the court is going to do! We are making laws here. What is the court going to do as a remedy? Will it reduce the rate of interest because he did not get the copy of his contract in the right language? The court may grant an order for rectification, but what must be corrected? There is nothing to rectify. The contract is correct; it is just not in the language which the person chose. Or is the court going to say that the contract is null and void?

Surely the court will give alternative relief.

What alternative relief is the court going to give? Tell me what alternative relief the court is going to give him.

[Inaudible.]

What is the court going to do? The person’s only complaint is that the contract is not in the language he chose. If the hon. the Deputy Minister were to be the court, what would he do?

That provision has been embodied in the Alienation of Land Act for more than five years.

Really, we are making this law. The fact that there is a stupid provision in one law does not mean one has to include a stupid provision in another law. I want somebody to give me an answer as to what the court is expected to do. It is really a ludicrous situation. And that is why one has to try to deal with it. Let us look at the argument that one would then be reducing the rate of interest. Nobody is suggesting that because the contract is not in the language one has chosen, the rate of interest should be reduced, not even the hon. member for Langlaagte. Am I not right? So what is one going to do? When is one going to reduce the rate of interest? Is one going to reduce the rate of interest because the relevant property is not correctly described, or somebody’s address is not stated? Surely one is only going to deal with the rate of interest on a logical basis—so as to create certainty—when the provisions of clause 4(l)(h) are not complied with. That has to be the case, and if it is not, I would certainly like somebody in this House to stand up now and tell me under what circumstances, other than those relating to clause 4(l)(h), one can argue that the rate of interest should be varied.

Get up, here!

Yes, here and now! The one party that should be supporting me in this, strangely enough, is the NRP …

You never know your luck, Harry!

… because this is a provision that helps no one but the lawyers, because it creates more uncertainty, litigation and problems, and does not help people to avoid having to go to court.

But there is no local option involved here.

That is the whole issue. If one wanted to add a small note in the margin to indicate what sort of provision this is, one would have to call it an attorney’s assistance provision, since its object is to ensure that they make a little more money. That, however, is really not our function in this House. Our function in this House is to make legislation that members of the public understand, that they do not have to resort to lawyers to have explained to them and do not have to get involved in unnecessary court cases. I am afraid, however—with great respect to the hon. the Deputy Minister—that this is one case in which, by not accepting the amendments, all he is doing is encouraging litigation and ensuring that there are more problems about which members of the public have to consult lawyers.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to debate this matter with the hon. member any further. I have indicated that essentially the same provision has existed in practice for many years with regard to the sale of land on instalments, as well as the alienation of land. We have never had any problem with it in practice. If we were to delete the words “alternative relief’ in this legislation, could it not have the effect that the provision could then in fact be interpreted to mean that the court does not also have the discretion to give a ruling on the powers that are granted here, but cannot otherwise grant any relief to the applicant at all?

They certainly do have any powers the court may have.

I am just putting it to the hon. member for his consideration that it could in fact be argued that if this were done, one would not be able to ask for alternative relief in a summons which is issued. I am just putting it to him for his consideration. The hon. member referred to the legal profession. It has often been said jokingly that if one asked five lawyers for an opinion on a point of law, one might get seven opinions. We shall keep debating certain points with one another.

†Let the hon. member, however, refer back to the words “substantially comply”. I think those are the significant words. I think emphasis should be placed on the question of substantially complying, because that would cover both situations as far as clauses 3 and 4 are concerned. Clause 4, of course, has now been broadened to make provision for the necessary legalities linking up with clause 3.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what the answer is to the point I raised about what the remedy is when the contract is not in the language chosen by the individual concerned? As a judge, what remedy would the hon. the Deputy Minister institute?

The hon. member is trying to involve me in a legal argument which I do not feel disposed to conduct with the hon. member at this stage. I indicated in my reply, in response to the hon. member’s point in connection with alternative relief, that the intention with this clause was to rectify a contract which was not formally in order, or if it could not be formally rectified, to have it declared void. The words which must be emphasized are “substantially comply”. Surely this is the essence of the contract, and the court must exercise the power conferred upon it by clause 8(l)(a), (b), (c) and (d). We are leaving it to the discretion of the court. Surely the hon. member has confidence in the courts and believe that they will implement the law correctly. If it is not found to have been a substantial non-compliance, surely the court can rule in favour of the applicant and say that in terms of the contract it is not necessary to pay interest for a certain period and that interest will only have to be paid as from the date on which it has been rectified. I really believe that these provisions would cover that problem.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments 2, 3 and 4 negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

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

Let me indicate the problem that arises here. In terms of the existing provisions, provision is made for necessary expenditure for which reasonable compensation can then be obtained. However, when it comes to improvements which enhance the market value, it is said that such costs can only be recovered if there was express or implied consent on the part of the owner. If a person bona fide occupies the premises, believing that there is a valid contract and that there is no right to cancel, and he then effects improvements which enhance the market value of the property, it seems to me to be only just that he should be compensated for that because, as I have indicated here, if without knowledge of the invalidity or of the existence of the right to cancel, he effects improvements which enhance the market value, he should be entitled to be compensated. To put it only on the basis that he must have the express or implied consent of the owner or seller does not appear to me to be a reasonable provision in respect of a man who has bona fide acquired such a unit.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to tell the hon. member that I appreciate his reasoning and his motion. However, I have a problem in accepting it. In the first place, we have thus far not had any problems in practice with the Alienation of Land Act, which was discussed earlier this year and which contains a basically identical provision. In the second place, I have the problem that if we accept the proposal of the hon. member for Yeoville, this could result in an unreasonable financial obligation being imposed on a seller without his having been given any prior notice. Unreasonableness could also result, not only in respect of the amount involved, but also in connection with the circumstances under which the financial obligation arose. In addition, the seller’s position is made more difficult, and indeed the unreasonableness is emphasized, by the fact that the buyer may demand the relevant amount from the seller whereas virtually no onus of proof rests on the buyer, except proof of the improvement as such. In this way the seller is actually at the mercy of the extravagance, if one can use that word, or uncontrolled expenditure a buyer may incur in such a case, because he will be able to recover these expenses with relative ease in terms of the hon. member’s motion. On the other hand, it is virtually impossible for the seller to prove that a buyer was aware of the invalidity or the existence of a right to cancel. I want to tell the hon. member that I have taken his reasoning and his motion into consideration, but that in the circumstances I cannot accept it. However, I shall take another look at this clause in the near future in the light of his reasoning.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. the Deputy Minister approaches this matter but, with great respect, I want to say that the fact that the Alienation of Land Act has a similar provision does not make this right. I think experience has shown that this is a problem. Let me also deal with the argument that all the purchaser has to do is to prove that he has effected improvements which have enhanced the market value. In terms of my amendment he also has to prove that he had no knowledge of the invalidity or of a right to cancel. The argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister is the following: Why should the seller be landed with an obligation to pay this compensation when he did not know that these improvements were going to be effected? Whose fault is it really that there is an invalidity? One would expect that if a contract is going to comply with the Act, that is the responsibility of the seller. The purchaser is not going to be the one who is going to be drawing up the contract and who is going to be seeing to it that the seller complies with the Act. It is the seller who has got to do that. If there is a question of invalidity, then it is the seller who is responsible for a situation which has resulted in invalidity. Let me give hon. members an example of what can happen, and here let me site a case which I am aware of in a different context. For example, one can get people who decide that they, for instance, are going to have a unit that they themselves will share over a period of a year and that they will allocate the weeks between them. So if one applies this to a time-sharing scheme, one gets a group of people who get a flat and who each have a period of time that they can occupy it. They put in a nice bathroom and they put in attractive fittings in order to make that flat more habitable, completely without the knowledge that there is any possible invalidity of the contract and no knowledge that there is a right to cancel. They are absolutely innocent. They have spent a fortune seeing to it that they have a nice flat with all the nice amenities in it. We then turn around and say to them: Well, it is bad luck, you cannot be compensated. That does not seem to me to be just and it does not seem to me to be fair. I believe that the way we should rather look at this matter is that when people have accommodation, we should encourage them to make it attractive and pleasant. However, in this way we are saying that they must first wait because there may be something that affects the validity of the deal and that they must therefore not spend anything on it. They must not make it look nice and they must live in the most mundane circumstances that they can. They must not pay any attention to improving the place in which they live because the deal may be invalid, or somebody may have the right to cancel and then they are not going to be compensated. To my mind this is an antisocial approach. It runs contrary to everything that we encouraged our people to do in South Africa. That is why, if the hon. the Deputy Minister will not accept my point now, will he at least look at the legislation and see to it that he changes it, not only with regard to this piece of legislation, but also in the Alienation of Land Act as well, because the same criticism can be made there?

Mr. Chairman, I did not use the argument that because it is in the Alienation of Land Act it is necessarily a good provision. I merely pointed out to the hon. member that there is a similar provision in that Act. In view of the hon. member’s own argument, it seems to me that it is important for us to be sure that the seller either gave his approval for the improvements or, if he was aware of them, remained silent which could be taken as tacit approval. The hon. member actually wants the word “with the express or implied consent of the said owner or seller” to be deleted and replaced. I repeat that the onus of proof on the seller to state that the buyer had to be aware of the invalidity is a very difficult onus. But I indicated a while ago that I should like to take another look at this clause in future, and I also want to tell him that there are many obstacles in the way of getting this clause amended.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, there is just one question that I wish to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister have anybody specifically in mind, at this stage, who should receive exemption from these provisions?

All the people who are leasing land, I hope.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Yeoville has just indicated by way of interjection is a possibility. We have not yet investigated this specific matter, but we shall examine the matter of exemptions and at the same time inclusions, in the entire context of the objective of the Act, because we have improved the Act in this way today. I reiterate that we should like to give interested parties the opportunity to address representations, both in the case of the intention to include them in the provisions of the Act and also in the case of exemptions which may possibly be made applicable.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

This amendment is in respect of regulations in terms of which people will enjoy further protection. When we say that we want regulations that will provide proper control over time-sharing schemes, I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to state specifically that such regulations will in fact include insurance against fire, theft, public indemnity, loss of money, damage and breakages in respect of the building and the contents thereof, the payments of rates and taxes, the repayment of mortgage bond instalments on due date, etc. That is the one point I want to raise.

Another point I want to raise at this stage, in connection with the question of regulations, is a matter which I have discussed with the hon. the Deputy Minister previously. He knows therefore what my difficulty is in this regard. I also think he may be able to suggest a remedy. However, we can discuss that in a moment.

The difficulty I have, Mr. Chairman, is that in terms of the definition contained in the Alienation of Land Act, 1981, “Alienate” means, when it is used in relation to land—

In that same Act “unit” is defined as follows—

It appears to me, Mr. Chairman, that the concept has now been accepted that in any agreement entered into in terms of a timesharing contract, where the payment of more than two instalments over a period of a year is to be made, it will be dealt with in terms of this legislation. If it falls under the Alienation of Land Act, all the provisions of that Act will of course apply, in particular section 20 of the Act, in terms of which every single contract will have to be registered. If we should take a building, say at Umhlanga Rocks, with 1 000 flats, and 52 people per unit have registered, it would mean 52 registrations in respect of one flat, and 52 000 registrations in toto in respect of one block of flats alone. Although I want to see this registration being put into effect, as I indicated during Second Reading, I would not like to saddle the deeds registry offices in South Africa with this burden without adequate provision and adequate discussion with them first. I therefore leave that point with the hon. the Deputy Minister so that he can deal with it further.

Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure whether I have here the complete wording of the amendment the hon. member for Hillbrow has just moved. I think that at this late stage in the discussion of the relevant legislation the hon. member for Hillbrow is moving motions which, I feel, simply cannot be studied in the short time we still have at our disposal. I do not think that at this late stage in the discussion of the relevant legislation one may move an amendment which, for example, concerns the alienation of land, particularly in view of all the pieces of legislation involved, as well as all the other attendant problems. We cannot try and do something like this now, particularly not with regard to a piece of legislation which has been available for us to study and discuss for weeks already. I feel the hon. member for Hillbrow is conjuring up spectres here concerning things which do not exist.

You do not know what you are talking about.

Of course I know what I am talking about. I am acquainted with this whole field of business.

We want the Alienation of Land Act to be excluded.

We are indeed arguing against having the Alienation of Land Act applied to this.

Is he …

I say it does apply but I do not want it to apply.

Well, you know, then we are on the same side.

Yes, that is right. [Interjections.]

Well, that is why I say that it is not quite clear to me what the argument of the hon. member for Hillbrow really is. [Interjections.]

He is not moving an amendment.

You see, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make quite sure that the hon. member for Hillbrow did not move an amendment.

No, he did not.

Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow moved an amendment printed in his name on the Order Paper. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, in that case I shall resume my seat. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Langlaagte should share some time in order to find out that they are actually side by side.

They are very far from each other. [Interjections.]

I think they are arguing along the same lines. I want to give the hon. member for Langlaagte a further motivation in order to give him, too, the assurance that the Alienation of Land Act should not be applicable here.

To begin with, I just wish to say that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow would have the effect that the present discretion afforded the Minister would be limited, and this could bedevil the proper regulation of the property time-sharing scheme. The paragraph in question has already been worded as widely as possible so that all the matters mentioned in the amendment may be regulated thereby.

†I should like to tell the hon. member that although I am not going to accept his amendment, the points he had raised here this afternoon will be taken into consideration when regulations are drafted and eventually promulgated. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member.

*Mr. Chairman, in the light of the discussions we have been holding concerning the issue of security, it has never been the intention that the Alienation of Land Act should be applicable here. Because this was not the intention in this legislation, I should like to move an amendment which will have the effect that the Minister obtains the power to prescribe the conditions in terms of which a time-sharing interest may be alienated. The intention here is to prohibit by regulation the alienation of a time-sharing interest under conditions that could make it subject to the Alienation of Land Act. I just want to have absolute certainty as far as this matter is concerned. At present there is already a possibility that in transferring undivided shares in terms of the Sectional Title Act, right of ownership could be transferred immediately, subject to registration of a bond in favour of a seller. However, I want to make very sure that we cannot cause confusion to arise. I do not concede that the Alienation of Land Act is already applicable as it stands here. This is merely to provide certainty. For this reason I wish to move the following amendment—

Hon. members have already received copies of this amendment and I trust that it will be acceptable to them.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his courtesy in this regard. We have struck a rather ticklish problem here and had we referred this legislation to a Select Committee in the first instance perhaps we would not have found ourselves in this situation. I have considered the matter very carefully and also discussed it very thoroughly with one of the senior officials of the department and I was asked to accept the fact that this amendment would cover the situation, in other words, prescribing conditions subject to which defined time-sharing interests may be alienated. Looking at it very carefully, I just wonder quite honestly whether it goes far enough because we do not specifically say that we exclude the provisions of the Alienation of Land Act as is done by section 33 of the Alienation of Land Act itself which excludes the provisions of the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act. This is going to give the Minister very wide powers in regard to the application of regulations. I would have liked some of the conditions in the Alienation of Land Act to apply here. If it is the intention to do so, then I shall be happy. Where there are more than two instalments in any one year then I think in relation to section 6 of the Alienation of Land Act which deals with the contents of a contract, the question of annual rates of interest should be stated, the amount of each instalment should be stated and the due date and method of determination should be as stated. There is also the question of transfer, the risk of profit or loss and special provisions in regard to land being encumbered by a mortgage bond. Then we also become involved with all the intermediaries who have purchased property under the provisions of sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act which afford protection in this regard. There is also the question of calculating interest in terms of section 12. In terms of section 13 a copy of the contract must be furnished. Section 16 makes provision for statements of account. I think it is very important that statements of account should be furnished so that people can see whether bond and other instalments have been paid. There is also section 17 in terms of which payments can be accelerated. I do not think the provisions of section 20 would apply in regard to recording the contract because that would be going too far at this stage, although I should like this to be done at some later stage with some degree of permanence. In regard to section 23, we should have a domicilium citandi et executandi provision as well so as to have a record of the address of the seller and the parties to the agreement. We shall also have to look at section 26 of the Alienation of Land Act because I think the general provisions may apply in any event if it is not done specifically in terms of sections 26, 27, 28 and 29 which require the opening of a register and so on. It will have to be established whether there is a contradiction of those sections. I therefore think, with great respect, that we find ourselves in quite a bit of difficulty. Although one might be able to prescribe the conditions which could apply—I should like it to go that far—I do not know whether this goes far enough. Will section 20 of the Alienation of Land Act for instance be excluded?

We are close to the automatic adjournment of the House and perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister would like to deal with this issue on a later occasion. If that is his wish, we shall have no objection.

Mr. Chairman, as we see it, this amendment, too, can be used to cause certain sections of the Alienation of Land Act to be applicable. The situation therefore is that we can bring into being what the hon. member requests.

*I am sure the hon. member means that in specific cases we can single out essential aspects in the regulations and make them applicable. In fact, we deem it to be in the interests of a purchaser that we are able to adapt the situation in this way.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to read his new amendment? I think he wants to include certain sections of the Alienation of Land Act.

Perhaps I should point out that the hon. the Deputy Minister moved only one amendment.

Could we just hear once again what it is?

Sir, perhaps I should repeat it. I think hon. members have copies of it. I was courteous enough to make copies available very early in the day.

If it is the one which we got, then it is all right. The amendment which we have is that on page 12, after line 5, to insert “prescribing conditions subject to which defined time-sharing interests may be alienated”. Is that the one?

Perhaps I should explain it to the hon. member. In the Afrikaans text the amendment is being effected on page 13 after line 5, and in the English text, on page 12 after line 5.

Mr. Chairman, the point which we want to make to the hon. the Deputy Minister—I do not know whether he wants to finish this today, but if he wants to, we shall help him—is that all he is doing here is to say that he can prescribe conditions subject to which defined timesharing interests may be alienated. If in fact the Alienation of Land Act applies in toto it may be desirable to exclude certain provisions, particularly those relating to registration, because of the tremendous burden on the Deeds Office. Therefore we believe that this amendment unfortunately does not cover the position. I therefore suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we should insert a new power for regulation. With this in mind I move the following amendment—

The effect of this amendment is that the Act can be either excluded or included, and one can even exclude or include parts of it. The hon. the Deputy Minister can have his amendment brought about—I do not have a problem with that—but I do not think it goes far enough and therefore I have moved this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to extend it in this way because we have the same objective. My advice is that the amendment I moved is adequate, but I have no objection to us accepting the proposal of the hon. member. In any case it clears up the position.

Mr. Chairman, we are encountering an increasing number of complications as far as this Bill is concerned. We started with the drafting of legislation in terms of which it would be possible to draft a sound Bill within the framework of existing Acts. I think we have gone far enough to protect the ordinary buyer completely. The Alienation of Land Act which until recently caused many problems and was also largely responsible for the tremendous problems being experienced nowadays with township establishment and the purchase and sale of land. In the legislation under discussion we are now keeping a door open in that a person investing in a time-sharing scheme will not know what legislation applies to him. He will only know that the Alienation of Land Act may possibly apply to him.

[Inaudible.]

Do you want me to finish? In that case we should have stopped sooner.

*I have a problem in this connection. Legislation should be final and people should know what they are letting themselves in for. I regard it as a problem that the Alienation of Land Act may or may not apply.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reassure the hon. member for Langlaagte. What is at issue here is the making of a regulation concerning what may be applicable. The buyer will be given absolute clarity in advance as regards which provisions will apply and which not, because we have to make all particulars public. All regulations which have to be made, and of which this is a part, will be cleared with all interested parties in advance. Let me reassure the hon. member that his objectives with the legislation are exactly the same as those we have been debating here.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s undertaking with regard to my amendment, I wish to withdraw it.

Amendment 1, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 2, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13:

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

I think the amendment is self-explanatory. I should like to thank hon. members most sincerely for their participation in the discussion of this Bill, as well as for their contributions to improve this measure. I appreciate their co-operation. The department will continue to consider all the arguments advanced by hon. members. In particular I want to thank the hon. members on this side of the House for their contributions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.