I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Agreed to (official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, there are some Bills that come before this House which we must oppose, and there are some we must accept, even if they are niggardly. I think it is time that the Government should realize that it is time that they should create a decent pension fund from which pensioners can obtain greater relief. The policy of living from hand to mouth whereby a little more is given out each year is hardly worthy of a country of this character. I hope that next year when the Minister comes forward with his annual Bill he will at least introduce some constructive system by which the pensioners will know where they stand.

I move—

This Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Pensions.

We on this side of the House support this Bill which merely gives legislative effect to the report of the Select Committee on Pensions, but there are one or two comments I should like to make. Firstly, when we study the Schedule of the Bill and see the effect that is given to the recommenations of the select committee, there is one particular aspect which I believe would obviate a great number of petitions coming before the select committee and which would bring about a saving in time and expenditure if a small amendment were made to our Acts. I would refer to Item 9 of the Schedule, where the option of election has been incorporated in the Schedule and where 11 cases have been ratified by the select committee. I believe that a great deal of time and expense could be saved if the Minister could give consideration to reviewing the meaning of Section 5 of the Government Servants Pensions Act, No. 58 of 1955, because with a slight proviso to that section it would be possible to eliminate a large number of those cases and much time would be saved. Similarly there is the other aspect where there are certain items which arise from time to time which are due to faults in our legislation and which have led to considerable losses to certain persons. I refer to Item 8 in the Schedule, which deals with the case of a stretcher-bearer in the Indian Bearer Corps. Due to the provisions of our War Veterans Act, this person was unable to qualify for a higher rate of pension. He was awarded compensation as far back as January 1932 for a 20 per cent disablement at the rate of R 18.36 per annum. The effect of this Bill will be that this person will now receive an increased pension up to the amount of R71.92 per annum. This unfortunate person has been drawing this small amount ever since 1932. I believe that with a small amendment to our legislation, we can obviate cases such as this where the person has been unable to claim his full rights for a period of 32 years. I hope that during the recess the Minister will study carefully certain aspects in regard to the matter, which at a future date would perhaps obviate the necessity for a number of these persons having to petition Parliament and the matter then having to come before the select committee.

Another aspect in regard to this Bill is that difficulty is experienced by the Minister’s Department in obtaining the necessary reports so that the select committee can deal with these petitions during the same session in which they are submitted. If one refers to the report of the select committee, one finds that there were no fewer than 14 petitions which could not be attended to during the Session. I hope that the Minister and his officials will endeavour to obtain as expeditiously as possible from the various Departments the necessary reports so that the select committee can consider them during the Session.

With reference to the speech made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) I can tell him that in regard to the first case he has mentioned—there are 11 at the moment—I am informed that there are only 30 such cases left. The questions arises whether it is necessary to introduce amending legislation just for the sake of those. Those 30 cases can very easily be incorporated and we shall give attention to that without forecasting in any way what the position will be in future because this is a matter for the select committee.

As far as the second case mentioned by the hon. member is concerned, he will find the recommendation in Item 8 of the Schedule. The matter has already been rectified there. The hon. member is concerned that there may be more such cases but I am informed that there is only this one case.

The third matter referred to by the hon. member is a matter to which we have already given attention, namely, to deal with petitions as expeditiously as possible. I do not know exactly how that is to be done but we shall give this matter further attention.

I move—

This Bill is the last one of a long pattern of legislation which has been before this House for a period of something like 15 years. It is a long list and each of these Bills in turn was introduced by the Government in the hope and in the firm belief that it would be the last measure of this kind that would be necessary.

Oh no.

Well, I sincerely hope that the Minister is not contemplating introducing more of this type of legislation next year. This legislation started with the Suppression of Communism Act and was followed by some of the other Bills with which the House dealt through the years, like the Public Safety Act, the General Law Amendment Act of 1953, the amendment of the Criminal Code in 1955, the Unlawful Organizations Act in 1960, and a series of General Law Amendment Bills over the last three years, of which the last one is before the House at present. I should like to say to the Minister that these Bills have done nothing to solve the problems with which this country is faced. Immense powers, most unusual in times of peace, have been vested in the Executive and in the Minister, but the exercise of these powers has not solved our problems. Frankly, I do not believe that these problems can be solved in this way. They can merely be kept in check by legislation of this sort, and I believe that the time has come when the Government should look for other solutions to these problems than legislation of this sort. I wish the Government would realize that the constant introduction of legislation of this type is nothing less than a sign of a lack of faith on the part of the Government in the future of South Africa. I submit that these Bills are solving nothing and that nowhere in this legislation has the Government got down to root causes. The Government has been warned on different occasions, but these warnings have been ignored entirely. I should like to express the hope that the Government will now realize this and that as from now onwards they will seek to concentrate on positive measures which will deal with the underlying causes in order to bring about a happier state of affairs in South Africa. I know there has been a lot of positive legislation, but in respect of the matters with which this Bill seeks to deal in particular I believe that a complete change of approach is required on the part of the Government in this great country of ours in an attempt to find real solutions to these problems and to bring about harmony instead of the difficulties of which we all know. I believe that it is very largely because of the fact that we have had this series of enactments that the enemies of this country overseas have had a greater opportunity to stir up feeling against this country. I would say to the Minister that anyone who loves this country cannot but be concerned at the rising tide of ill feeling towards us, a great deal of which is base on complete misconceptions on the part of persons in various countries of the world. This ill feeling cannot be eliminated by legislation of this sort. It can only be eliminated by a new approach and a facing up to the problems which are obvious to all of us. I therefore express the hope that we will devote attention to this matter and that we will take steps to bring about a decrease in the difficulties with which we have been faced over the years and that the Minister will take steps to bring about the elimination of the sources of friction which have been grasped at by our enemies, within and without.

I should just like to say in passing that this side of the House has always been prepared— I speak of course only for the official Opposition—to give to the Government powers which we consider necessary for the safety of the State. Despite criticism on more than one occasion, we have extended those powers and have supported them when we regarded them as necessary. Even in this legislation we have indicated that we support the extension of the provisions in regard to the training for sabotage; just like hon. members opposite we on this side are utterly opposed to sabotage. Again, it is a method of approach which solves nothing and we have therefore been prepared to give to the Government and to the Minister the necessary powers in that regard. I believe that nothing truer has ever been said than the words of that great Englishman, Burke, when he said: “I know of only two ways in which a people can be governed, with their consent oi by the sword”. His warning in respect of America went unheeded, and we know the result. I wish that this Government will learn that lesson. I believe that our concentration in the years that lie ahead should be so to govern, this country that we will have the consent of the people, because only with a government based on consent can we build that lasting edifice that is necessary to help South Africa to overcome the tremendously difficult problems with which we have been faced, problems in respect of which we must do everything we can to find the solution. I believe that that solution can be found, but I do not believe that it can be found along the lines of the legislation which is before us at present.

What support have you got for your own approach?

Hon. members opposite will know that this has been the consistent attitude of this side of the House since the first piece of legislation of this kind came before this House. In each case we have given this warning and in each case it has been ignored by the Government. I believe that this would have been a very much happier country if throughout these years the Government had at least accepted some of the suggestions from this side of the House which could have contributed so much towards bringing about a happier state of affairs in this country.

Why not answer the question put to you?

I have answered the hon. member’s question; I have answered him perfectly clearly. If I misunderstood his question that is a different matter; I am quite prepared to allow him to clarify it.

I would like to know what support there is amongst the non-European community for the policy of the United Party?

Let me put it this way: I believe and I know that there is immense sympathy and goodwill for the constructive policies of the United Party. We certainly do not satisfy the agitators with whom the hon. the Minister has to deal, but amongst the thinking people of the other racial groups there is a great deal of sympathy amongst a growing number for the policy of the United Party, and I have no doubt that when the United Party takes over the reigns of government we will see a complete change in respect of relationships between Whites and non-Whites and that we will see the building up of a co-operative state.

What proof have you?

I have already given the hon. member proof. The electorate of this country will continue to strengthen the proof at election after election.

I now pass on to another question which is dealt with in this Bill. I do not wish to deal with all the matters dealt with in this Bill but there is one matter of very great importance in regard to which I wish to say a word or two. Sir, I would like to say as an English-speaking South African and as one who has always stood for the utmost co-operation between Afrikaans- and English-speaking and for the building of a united nation, that I am tremendously disappointed in the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of the decision taken by him in regard to the Broederbond.

Obviously this is a secret organization. I only know what I believe are some of the aims of that organization but it has one aim to which I have been and always will be utterly opposed, and it is this: I do not believe that the way to build a united nation in a country like South Africa is to have secret organization, however harmless—and I do not believe that it is harmless—the part may be that it is playing in the political field behind the scenes. I believe that the existence of an organization of this sort is an insult to every English-speaking South African who has a stake in the future of South Africa and who is prepared to stand or fall by South Africa, as I am prepared to do and as the younger generations of Tuckers in this country are prepared to do and will do in case of need. But I do not believe, where there are these feelings—and I have expressed them exactly as I feel them—that any solution will be arrived at through an inquiry of the sort which the hon. the Prime Minister has seen fit to institute in this matter. Sir, I have the utmost respect for the hon. Judge who is to conduct this inquiry but I say that the hon. the Prime Minister was utterly wrong in taking a unilateral decision as he has done, which is entirely contrary to my conception of what is right, because the inquiry which is to take place will take place behind closed doors. The basis on which this whole matter was discussed in this House was on the basis of an open hearing. That has now been rejected.

I have told you that the Bokryers (Freemasons) would not want an open inquiry.

I believe that the hon. the Prime Minister has made a fundamental error in the attitude that he has taken in regard to this matter. I believe that if one wishes to instil confidence, the way to do so is to let things see the light of day, and I say that an almost impossible task will rest on the shoulders of the hon. Judge in conducting this inquiry according to the procedure decided upon by the hon. the Prime Minister. Sir, I leave the inquiry there; I can only hope that some good will come of it but I am quite certain that whatever good may come from it will only be a fraction of the good which would have come from an inquiry on the basis which we on this side of the House were entitled to expect when the hon. the Prime Minister came back to this House and made his statement. At that stage there was no suggestion that this was to be a secret inquiry.

There is one last matter to which I wish to refer and that is this further amendments to the Population Register. I would like to say this to Government members; I do not believe that the hon. the Minister concerned is personally present: I wonder if he realizes the amount of misery which has been caused over the years as a result of the uncertainty which exists in respect of the operation of the Population Register. Whether the Minister so wishes or not, he has not introduced further uncertainty. When the amendment, which is now once again being amended, was passed two years ago, it was quite clearly understood that there was to be no going back on what had already been done. The hon. the Minister was not prepared to accept amendments from this side which would have made it clear that while this new definition will apply for the future, it will not apply to those unhappy cases which are a source of sorrow to us all, namely the split families ’where the race of members of the family is in doubt. Sir, I repeat it is time there was certainty with regard to this matter and I very much regret that the hon. the Minister has insisted on putting this provision on the Statute Book in the form in which we have it before us. I believe that it should have been in a better form, but I can only hope that as a result of the efforts of hon. members on this side, the hon. the Minister will act, in administering this measure, as if the amendment had been accepted. I believe that the sooner the hon. the Minister can say that there will be no going back on what has already been done, except at the request of the person concerned, the better it will be for the peace of mind of many South Africans and the better it will be for the country. We are now reaching the end of the debate on this piece of legislation and I want to echo again what I said earlier, and that is that this is not the correct method of approach to these problems. I believe that there should be a tremendous effort—and I believe that we can be successful—to obtain the consent of all South Africans for our system of government. Obviously we will see to it that the heritage which has come down to us is preserved; that is nothing less than our duty. Sir, I know that we are faced with one of the most difficult tasks in history. I know of no country anywhere on the face of the globe which is faced with greater problems. What is required of us is greatness and not pettiness, and I say that some of the legislation of this type is petty. I am appealing here for a new approach to these matters on the part of the Government. I say that their approach to these matters should be worthy of this great country and its past. I believe that only along those lines can we bring about that happy state of affairs whereby all the people of South Africa will be governed with their consent, where legislation of this type will be unnecessary and where South Africa can get down to the very much greater task of providing a secure and safe future for all the peoples of South Africa without doing an injustice to one group or another. That should be our task, and since this legislation does not measure up to that standard I am honoured to move—

I was interested in what the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) said here but he once again came with the same old story. He might just as well have discussed any other Bill except this one. He says there should be a new approach. However, I first want to deal with the hon. member’s remarks about the Broederbond. Sir, the United Party was in power for 15 years from 1933 to 1948 and if the Broederbond were such a dangerous organization why did they not wipe it out during that period of 15 years or why did they not have an inquiry into it? Why have they waited for 15 years? Now that the National Party has the courage to institute an inquiry they raise all these objections. They are annoyed because they have now been deprived of the chance they thought they would have to make propaganda. They are annoyed because the Sunday Times no longer publishes a number of false things every Sunday.

What about the documents?

The Sunday Times has always published false reports about the Broederbond and has always drawn wrong conclusions from the information it has had at its disposal. The United Party now realize that that weapon has been taken out of their hands with the appointment of this inquiry.

There is a second aspect I wish to mention. The hon. member says amending legislation is continually introduced in this House. Sir, that will be done as long as the safety of the State demands it. As long as there are threats from within and from without the necessary legislation will be piloted through this House no matter what the United Party says because the people outside want peace and quiet in this country. If the Government were to introduce further legislation to-morrow or the day after the people outside would support it.

It is very easy for the United Party to talk about a new approach but the difficulty is that we do not know what their approach is. They say South Africa will be a paradise under their policy and that everybody will be satisfied but the trouble is that we do not know what their paradise is going to be like because it has not been sketched to us. We do not know nor do the non-Whites know. We have already been begging the United Party for 15 years to tell us what South Africa will be like under their policy. It is easy to talk about “government by consent” but whom are they really going to consult? Whites and non-Whites? What will the ultimate form of government be? Why will the policy of the United Party be more acceptable than the policy followed in other parts of Africa? Why will the policy of the United Party be more acceptable than the policy which Sir Roy Welensky has followed? Why will their policy be more acceptable than the policy England has followed in other parts of Africa and which has not satisfied the people there? Sir, the approach of this Government is a sound and a positive approach. We shall continue to introduce legislation as long as pressure is exerted on South Africa from outside and as long as there are saboteurs in this country who want to overthrow the Government. We are dealing with very cunning enemies, with sly persons, who have been using the sabotage instrument for more than 50 years, an instrument which has been sharpened in Russia and other parts of Europe. They are experienced in using that instrument and that is why we shall always be faced with new situations which will demand new legislation. I therefore think that the United Party is making a very big mistake in not supporting this legislation seeing that the electorate, the people outside, want this legislation because they want to live in safety in South Africa.

It seems to me that both the Government and the Official Opposition are extremely optimistic, in different directions. The Opposition speaker, the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), stated that he hoped that this would be the last piece of legislation of this kind to come before this House. Sir, that is very optimistic indeed in view of the experience that we have had here in the past. The Government is optimistic in thinking that by passing such legislation it is going to solve any of South Africa’s problems. It is extraordinary that nobody learns from past history. We had the Whipping Bills, the Anti-Communist Bills, the banning of Unlawful Organizations Bills, the Sabotage, Act, last year’s General Law Amendment Act and now this year’s General Law Amendment Act, all in the same pattern, all designed for one purpose, the maintenance of law and order. Everybody agrees that it is a justifiable cause but these measures are certainly not maintaining law and order because as long as there are unjust laws, law and order cannot be properly maintained in South Africa. We never seem to learn. To-day we are passing another law to help maintain law and order. The Rivonia trial has just finished and on the placards to-day we see that the police are busy unearthing another sabotage gang, according to the Burger, belonging to “Die Assegaai van die Volk”. This is a new revival of the Spear of the Nation.

Do you suggest that no steps should be taken?

Of course, I do not suggest that no steps should be taken. I believe that law-breakers should be brought before the court and tried and convicted if found repressive law that the Government introduces one year after another is in any way guilty but I do not believe that this sort of going to ensure permanent peace and security in South Africa; it cannot do so because the Government, completely stubbornly, refuses to examine the real causes of unrest in South Africa, and as long as it goes on maintaining that stubborn attitude we are going to have new manifestations of “Die Assegaai van die Volk”. If it is not called that, it will be called something else. History has proved that in other countries, and history is proving it in South Africa.

The hon. the Prime Minister the other afternoon was much exercised by the fact that the Rivonia trialists had received the sympathy of the outside world, even the sympathy of the anti-communist nations, countries like Great Britain and the United States. He was perturbed that the other nations had gone so far in their animosity towards South Africa that even when a trial had been conducted properly through due processes of the court, under the highest standards of justice and judicial process and persons had been found guilty, nevertheless anti-communist countries were sympathizing with the Rivonia trialists. But, Sir, the reason for this is clear to anybody. It is because in the eyes of the outside world these people are identified, not with Communism but with the struggle against apartheid; whether we like it or not, their causes has been identified with the anti-apartheid struggle, and whether South Africa likes it or not there is one issue and one issue only that is of concern to the world to-day and that is the issue of race discrimination. Whatever this country does to bring misdoers before the courts of law, in terms of legislation of this kind, nothing is going to help, unless this country decides that it is going to take a stand in the opposite direction and that is to remove race discrimination. Then, Sir, all the sympathy of the Western world will be on South Africa’s side when people break the law because they will be breaking laws that the outside world considers to be just laws and they will not be breaking laws that the outside world considers to be unjust laws. Therefore I see no point in this sort of legislation. I know that next year the hon. the Minister is going to come back again with more legislation asking for more powers and I know that the Government is not going to tackle the root causes and therefore I must again oppose this legislation.

It is not often that one is able to estimate the prospects of a country, let alone of its legislative body, by way of an interjection or an ejaculation consisting of no more than two words—and that, Sir, is what we were able to do this morning as a result of the reaction of the hon. the Minister of Justice when the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) said that he hoped that the type of legislation before the House to-day would be the last to be introduced here. The hon. the Minister said, “Oh no!” Sir, what can we look forward to in South Africa down the vista of the years, or the year or the 18 months during which this Government will still be in power? What can be look forward to, except a new model of this kind of legislation every year? Just in other countries the ownership of a new model, the current model of a motor-car has become a personal status symbol, this Government has accepted as its status symbol the 1964 model of the General Laws Amendment Bill—next year, 1965 model of the General Laws Amendment Bill, and so on this is the picture that we present to the world. Sir, I cannot understand why, in one and the same Cabinet, in one and the same Government, there are forces working in different and in fact in opposite directions. For example, as hard as our Minister of Foreign Affairs and even our Minister of Information may try to project the picture—one does not want to keep on harping on the word “image”—or the appearance or the reputation of South Africa on to the screen of the world, as it were, so as to make it look at least as good as circumstances permit, so hard do certain other members of the same Cabinet and the same Government do their best to distort that image, to make it look as ugly as possible; and annually, whether he is driven by circumstances, whether he is driven by the policy of the Government or whether he is partly in a position to choose his own course, the hon. the Minister of Justice does more to distort that picture of South Africa than any other member of the Cabinet. Sir, I would not hold that against him if he were the victim of circumstances—but if he were the victim of circumstances, he would use every opportunity which the Opposition presents to him to change those circumstances so that, by paying heed to another point of view, to another case, he could say to the Cabinet, “This is not good for South Africa; therefore my advice is that we should change our course, and this being the case, I am not going to put these laws on the Statute Book”. Sir, this is his opportunity. But, as we have seen during the debate on this Bill, the hon. the Minister has been adamant. The Government side has been bored. I cannot help contrasting the position this year with the position last year, when members of the Government side were in this Chamber at all stages of the consideration of laws of this kind, hanging on every word of the hon. the Minister of Justice. Where have they been in this debate? Where were they in the Committee Stage? It could not go unnoticed that at times there were only five or seven members on that side. At one time there was only one spokesman on that side to reply to the outstanding case presented by the legal team on this side of the House. There was only one spokesman on that side, the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) and you know, Sir, what happens when the hon. member for Standerton has to be the spokesman for an entire Government! I believe that if we are not already inured, we are becoming inured in South Africa to laws which in every civilized country in the world to-day—whether we agree with that view or not—are regarded as restrictive and oppressive. We are becoming used to this kind of legislation. It is becoming something which is almost standard practice, as shown by the exclamation of the hon. the Minister; in fact, we cannot do without it, “We” being the Government, and probably a section of the people supporting the Government. But I doubt whether they would make this choice if the facts were laid before them in such a way, by a responsible Government, that they could say, “We will take a certain risk, a calculated risk in regard to what may occur within the country, in regard, even, to sabotage, rather than put laws on the Statute Book which put us in the position where, with the best will in the world, our friends will fail to defend us”. Sir, this is what is happening as a direct consequence of this series of laws and of this type of legislation. Surely it is high time that not only the image or the picture that we present to the outside world became of significance to us, but that the picture which we present to ourselves, to our own people, became significant to us. Sir, the gift “to see ourselves as others see us” is something which we do not even want any more in South Africa; we do not wish to see ourselves as others see us. We do not wish to see ourselves as certain very important sections of the population of this country see us, and as long as we have laws which are made by only a section of the total community of South Africa, surely nobody suggests that these laws, made in every case by the White group, are acceptable to and admired by the Bantu group, or by the Coloured group or by the Indian group. I doubt whether even the hon. the Minister of Justice, in terms of his argument that certain laws are designed to protect the State and all individuals in the country, will say that some of the laws which are included in this Bill are in fact acceptable to all but a section of the White community in this country. I doubt whether he will say that. This Bill is part, of course, of a process which is regarded with abhorrence in the outside world, and by many people in our own country, because it is a process of encroachment on the liberty of the individual. I cannot believe that we have come to the stage where we accept that the liberty or the freedom of the individual cannot be equated with the security of the State. It is so equated in other countries which are more closely and more deeply involved in the cold war than we are. Surely nobody suggests that our involvement in the cold war, actual or potential, is greater than that of, shall we say, the United States? Surely nobody suggests that in terms of the dangers which that country faces, as compared with this country, in terms of the costs—of money and manpower and effort— in terms of the possibility of total obliteration in a nuclear war, we run a greater risk in the cold war or in the war against Communism than does the United States. Sir, the United States is an example, one which I was able to see quite recently, which shows that whereas this danger is still growing, it does not diminish the freedom or the liberty of the individual under the law; if anything, it has exactly the opposite effect. Despite that colossal danger, despite the cold war and despite the war against Communism, in the United States individual freedom is growing— and I can prove that very easily. We have here a law which provides the appointment of a secret commission to inquire into secret organizations.

Quite recently—towards the end of last year —in the United States there was a commission, called by another name, a Senate Committee of inquiry into Organized Crime. This is a body which held its sitting on Capitol Hill, in Washington, and its proceedings were not only open to the public, if they could get into the room, but they were being televised for two hours a day from coast to coast, every day; and so one had the opportunity of seeing all those taking part, as well as hearing every word of the evidence given by a gangster by the name of Joe Valachi who, as they say in America, was “singing”—but, of course, “singing” in this context is something different from the operation performed by Maria Callas at the Metropolitan—about organized crime from one end of the United States to the other, and giving chapter and verse of crime on a colossal scale, identifying and incriminating people and corporations and groups and societies such as the Mafia. If you did not have a television set you heard it over the radio three times a day; you heard the actual questions asked by the chairman and other members of the committee and by the legal representatives of all the parties concerned, as well as the statement made by the person who was giving the evidence or the information. In fact, you knew exactly what was going on. This is regarded as being a perfectly normal procedure in the United States, even though it is confronted with the war against Communism. In fact, it is the leader of the Western world in the fight against Communism. I think that is common cause. Why is it possible there? Why must we have secret inquiries here? Why is it possible in the U.S.A, for any citizen to criticize the highest in the land with impunity, as long as there is no suggestion that he wishes to commit sabotage or a subversive offence? Another example of that individual freedom, which we in South Africa are losing under these laws, freedom which all of us are losing and not only those who are “put away”, is the following: I was motoring along the highway in the state of Texas when I saw an enormous poster which read “Impeach Earl Warren”. I am afraid I was not very alert that morning because I had to see three of those enormous posters, about half the size of that wall over there, Sir, before I realized that Earl Warren was (and still is) the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States! Yet there is a body there, well organized, well financed, which, disagreeing with a certain judgment of the Chief Justice in connection with integration, is at liberty to ask the nation to support a move to impeach the Chief Justice of the United States! And you know, Sir, what impeachment means better than I. That is individual freedom. They do not feel they are losing the war against Communism or the cold war, because that kind of liberty is allowed. Contrast that with the position created by laws such as Clauses 14, 27 to 29, in this Bill. I have seen, as others, of course, have seen, that the highest in the land, such as the President of the United States, has to obey the will of the people to the extent where he can be, and is in fact, submitted to the most vitriolic cross-examination and criticism publicly, whether on television in the programme “Meet the Press” or at a Press conference. According to the conception of freedom in the U.S.A., nobody is sacrosanct or immune. But the safety of the State is sacrosanct as the Alger Hiss case proves. Why have they not got the incidence of sabotage that we have in this country, despite all our laws? I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us what benefit we derive, for example, from the incarceration of Sobukwe. Obviously, I do not hold a brief for Sobukwe; there is no reason why I should. What have we done about this man except to confer on him notoriety out of all proportion to his importance, if not fame out of all proportion to his importance, by firstly detaining him after his term of imprisonment had been served, and now proposing to detain him further? What have we achieved except the enlargement of this man’s personality—as far as the outside world is concerned, out of all proportion? According to the Minister we now have a “Sobukwe” Clause. “Sobukwe”, being a noun, has become an adjective. I am sure any minute from now it will become a verb. Sir, you will remember how the name “Rommel” became a verb, particularly in the Afrikaans language, as a result of that Field Marshal’s activities in the Western Desert. One of these days we will get to the stage where to detain somebody after he has served his term of imprisonment will be to “Sobukwe’ ’that man. This is becoming part of the currency of our language. I think it is the height of absurdity.

In regard to this particular clause the hon. the Minister, having told us that Sobukwe has apparently indicated that he regards himself as the leader of a certain group of people, did not tell us why he held that opinion. He did not say that Sobukwe had made a statement to that effect. The Minister said that because he regarded himself as the leader of a certain organization he, Sobukwe, would become a danger to the State if the Minister allowed him to go free. Having regard to the damage done to South Africa in every possible way, damage which may not be so apparent to-day but which is cumulative, as we have seen over the past few years, and having regard to the cost involved in implementing this particular law, it would be far better, if not far cheaper, to assign even three men to watch or guard Sobukwe, somewhere else than in prison, throughout every day—until the Minister was satisfied that he was not indulging in such activities as to justify his detention. The man may become a rehabilitated member of society; he may already have changed his thinking. I do not know—nor does the hon. Minister. To-day he may have no following. Is not that possible? How can one say the man has a following as long as he is on Robben Island? There is no way of proving it one way or the other. It can only be surmise and conjecture. As long as that is the position, I believe the country would be far better off if we did not have this particular provision which permits the hon. the Minister to detain Sobukwe for another year.

I suggest that some important opinions in this country have been completely overlooked in framing the type of legislation we have in this Bill. I have in mind, for example, a statement by Professor A. H. Murray, who is regarded as an expert on Communism, which we are fighting and which some of these laws are designed to fight. He made that statement in April of this year and he said the following—

He then refers to the churches—

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Do you think so, Sir?

May I then point to the effects of this Bill on what is called our reputation in the outside world?

Do us a favour and sit down.

We know that the world Press and certain leaders of Western opinion have reacted very unfavourably in the past to this sort of law. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister expects a better reaction after this year’s General Law Amendment Bill? I wonder, in the light of a statement I have here by George L. P. Weaver, Assistant Secretary of Labour for International Affairs, who, according to the New York Times of 7 June “has denounced South Africa’s racial policies in what is believed to be the most forceful language used by an official of the United States Government”. According to the report the speech that he made was cleared by the State Department. In other words, it is the authoritative opinion of the Government of the United States. It says amongst other things—

This is in regard to the policy of apartheid, not in regard to laws of this nature—

Again, before it was known that this law would be passed—

That was before we had the provision which allows the Minister to hold a man up to 12 months, not 90 days—

Again, Sir, before it was known that the Minister intended to renew that particular provision. This was based on the position as it was 12 days ago. Then he says things with which one does not agree, such as—

That, Sir, is the kind of impression that is created by a law which provides for 90 days confinement. This is the kind of picture we are to-day projecting to the outside world. Then he says—

He goes on to say that as a nation the people of the United States are committed to see the elimination of this kind of law and this kind of legal system in the world.

Sir, I think the Government should ponder very seriously the effects and the consequences of these laws. We on this side of the House hold to our opinion, an opinion which has been stated very clearly, particularly in the Committee Stage. I hope the hon. the Minister will agree that it is not necessary to have all these laws. They may give him certain powers in a more streamlined form, but he already has other powers, powers which draw attention to South Africa, powers which throw the spotlight of world approbium on South Africa. He should ponder, Sir, before we pass this particular Bill.

I wonder whether hon. members opposite will tell us what their approach to this matter really is and what actual support they really have. I do not have the White section of the population in mind so much but the non-White section. During this Session the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has had at least half a dozen opportunities of explaining to us what their approach is towards this particular problem. Instead of doing that we are wasting our time on such matters as inquiries into secret organizations, particularly the Broederbond. In parenthesis, I just want to ask whether the opposition to the Broederbond does not stem mainly from the fact that it is a South African organization and not an international one? Had it been an international organization it would quite possibly have been popular with hon. members opposite. I personally suspect that that is not the only reason why they are opposed to the Broederbond, and in favour of another organization which we usually call the “Bokryers” (Freemasons). Because that organization is international they act as its mouthpiece.

Will you give evidence?

Do not let us get personal. That hon. member cannot think without getting personal. It nauseates me.

Is it not a fact that the policy of a multiracial government which the Opposition advocates has failed everywhere in the world? It has failed wherever they have tried to apply it. How many national wrecks are not strewn along that road? We have Cyprus. That was to have been a model example to the world of how various races could live together and today they are cutting one another’s throats. We had the case of the Federation of Rhodesia. The Opposition is not even prepared to go as far as Rhodesia was prepared to go. Rhodesia says frankly that within the foreseeable future, within 10 or 15 years, they will have a Black Government. The hon. Opposition is not prepared to say that to us or to the rest of the world. They dare not say it; they dare not do so because they know they will not have the support of the White people.

I wish to refer to a second matter which has not yet been raised in this debate. The first is the story we had from the Cape Times at the beginning of the month, a story in which they called the policy of the Government “revolutionary” and the policy of that side of the House “evolutionary”. I do not think I am doing the Cape Times an injustice when I say they envisage a Black Government for this country and that the Opposition, because of their multi-racial policy, is heading in that direction. This policy of a “non-racial State where merit and merit alone will count” is an idle dream. We know that anything like that cannot exist in the world; or at least not until we have reached the millenium. We have not yet had a word of disapproval from the Opposition in this connection, Sir. The Cape Times says we shall in any case eventually have a Black Government. The United Party is heading along a road of evolution whereas our policy will also land us there but only along a road of revolution, according to the Cape Times.

The second matter I wish to raise is this Mr. Speaker, have you noticed the great similarity between the recommendations of the Myrdal Commission—that committee of experts of UNO—and the policy of the Opposition? There is very great similarity between the two. There must be a national convention. [Interjections.] But surely that is your policy. At one time hon. members opposite most ardently advocated a national convention, a national convention of all sections of the people which would have decided on the form of government we would have in future. There were to have been “checks and balances”. That is also referred to by the Myrdal commission.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is simply this that I want the Opposition to put their cards on the table. They must tell us what their policy is. They are placing their policy against ours. I am not even talking about the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). She is only concerned with one thing; When she looks at the political situation she has her dark glasses on and she only sees Black faces in this country. I am not talking about her but about the Opposition. As long as the world outside believes that that side of the House will come into power the threats against South Africa will continue, threats of sanctions even by means of force. The United Party must get away from that idea completely. If they do so it will not be as necessary as it is to suppress riots by way of legislation such as the legislation we are discussing to-day to try to safeguard the country.

In the long run the first duty of a Minister of Justice is not to determine national policy but to ensure the safety of the State. That is his first duty. After that, as a member of the Cabinet, he can try to influence the trend of events. It is totally wrong to think that he must stop introducing legislation of this nature, legislation which has to ensure the safety of the State, and that he should try to control the position in another way. That is what the United Party say knowing, as they do that the direction they want to follow has not led to success anywhere in the world.

The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) touched on the question of multi-racialism, the question of the Broederbond and on other matters in this Bill. I shall deal with the question of the Broederbond a little bit later. I want to deal briefly with what the hon. member said about multi-racial states. He says multi-racial states do not work. The fact is that where you are so mixed up as we are here you are a multiracial population and you have to work together otherwise you will land in trouble. Where the hon. member speaks of Rhodesia let me say at once that, if anything, they were following a Progressive Party policy in Rhodesia. But above all …

Order! The hon. member is falling into the same trap.

Sir, may I not just answer the hon. member? He made the point and he has not been replied to.

Order! I called the hon. member for Standerton to order.

I hope the hon. member will appreciate that I have a great deal to say to him on this subject.

I shall return to the Bill. We on this side of the House agree fully that the Government must be extremely watchful in regard to the maintenance of law and order. We have shown ourselves not at all unmindful of that in the fact that last year, for example, we gave considerable support to a piece of legislation introduced by the hon. Minister of Justice. We incurred great displeasure in certain circles because of that, but we were perfectly prepared to incur that displeasure. We have done it before and I do not doubt that we shall do it again; but equally we have a concern for the maintenance of the highest standards in a difficult situation. It is in that regard that we differ from the hon. the Minister. Just as we have supported measures to ensure the maintenance of law and order, so we give praise to those who are concerned with it. We have done so again during this Session. But it is indeed sad, Sir, that we cannot have even one session where we are spared changes to our criminal code of the kind that we have here—innovations, new changes, not merely a perpetuation of old ones; changes which are far-reaching.

We in South Africa can undoubtedly, with wisdom, continue to maintain Western standards for generation after generation. We shall certainly have to fight both to maintain law and order and those high standards. We on this side of the House ask that the Government, in their administration, to have that as their aim as well. We have during the course of this Session shown how, in regard to the police, we shall back them to the full, but we want them too to be true to their best standards. In regard to our code of law we are prepared, and have been prepared, to make adaptations which are necessary, but we ask the Government to fight for high standards in that regard so,,that nobody can point a finger at our standards any more than they can point a finger at our Judges. How often do we not as members of this House and as South Africans acclaim the reputation and achievements of our judiciary? Let us also be able to acclaim the reputation of our criminal law. Our Code is a fine a Code as you can find. Do not let us lightly whittle it away year by year unless it is absolutely essential.

It is essential.

That is the way Government members talk. They say it is absolutely essential, on the one hand, yet they say we have perfect peace in this country on the other hand. We cannot have both. Of course, one must be on one’s toes. But have a little courage, have a little faith in our police, have a little faith that we shall be able to get out of this situation. The hon. the Minister, more than anybody else, says we have peace yet he continually asks for further powers.

I want to say this, that long before we got the General Law Amendment Bill of last year with its modifications, particularly the 90-day clause, and before we got this Bill which is before us now, our police and our courts had coped to such an extent with the problem with which we were faced last year, that the hon. the Minister, in seeking those extra powers last year, actually told us that the Poqo organization with which he was faced, had been paralyzed if not entirely eliminated. He gave us the impressive figure of over 2,000 persons who had been arrested and were being charged. The police were able to arrest those people; they were able to get the evidence to charge those people. The hon. the Minister rightly prides himself and his Department on the fact that many of those people had already been convicted. As I say that organization was practically eliminated under, what one might call, the high standards of our Code. I am aware that the Minister claims that the A.N.C. is a different matter. When the Minister came with the General Law Amendment Bill last year he was only dealing with the Poqo organization; but, although he had it beaten, he said he still needed those powers. He made no mention in his second-reading speech of a more dangerous organization that he knew of. I do not know of any organization more dangerous. There may be some dangerous communists who are Europeans connected with that organization. Certain Europeans are also connected with the Poqo organization. But the large bulk of the people belonging to the A.N.C. organization including the Umkonto organization are not in fact Europeans. The methods used against Poqo had been completely effective, and there was no reason why they should not have been equally effective against this other organization. As I say, the Minister must take a little courage in these matters.

I am also disappointed in the hon. the Minister, although on a slightly lower note, because, as I understood him yesterday, he said if we could advance to him cases of prejudice in connection with Clauses 27 and 29 of this Bill, he was quite prepared to withdraw those clauses. Well, various items of prejudice were advanced from this side, to some of which the Minister made no obvious retort at all and nor did any other member on that side attempt to deal with them. I myself raised certain matters which seemed to me to have substance and which were not dealt with. The hon. the Minister conceded that as far as the Bar was concerned it was opposed to these matters. Presumably it thought there was prejudice and disadvantage.

Nevertheless, in the face of all that evidence the Minister just let the clause go through and approval was obtained. I was surprised and shocked because I genuinely thought that the Minister was going to withdraw those clauses. Now, I am aware, of course, that I was probably very naïve—I probably am— but it seemed to me that the Minister made a perfectly genuine statement of the position there. More particularly did one feel that he must have been serious about that because he is submitting these amendments to the Code with very little previous consultation. Normally, when a change is made in our law in much less important matters, the matter is very often circulated to the Judges and practically always to the Bars beforehand. In this case it was not sent to the Bars at all for discussion. The Bars eventually heard of this Bill (it was brought out late) and they hurriedly sent a representative who, I think, interviewed the Minister and hurried representations were made. The representations were so hurried that, apparently having agreed to a certain line, the representative apparently had to modify his attitude.

This does not fill me with confidence. The hon. the Minister must make a fight for the name of our Code. It seems to me that he yields too easily to pressure to deal with a special situation which arises. Just as we are proud of the name of our Judges and police, so must we be proud of the name of our Code, and fight for it. This applies also to our police.

I now come to that aspect touched upon by the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander), namely, the Broederbond. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. A. F. Nel) also spoke about the Broederbond. The latter asked why the United Party Government did not suppress the Broederbond since the Broederbond was operating during its time. There is no doubt that there was sufficient provocation if that Government had wanted to act against it in those days. There was sufficient provocation even as far back as that. To-day the situation is even more fraught with possibilities.

Why did the United Party Government not act against it?

Certain steps were taken against it, and civil servants, for instance, were not allowed to be members thereof.

Was any inquiry held?

The Government of the day was, however, not prepared to be stampeded into legislation, as this Minister is stampeded, too easily I should say, into legislation to change our criminal code. The Government of that time put up with the Broederbond and had to live with it. Now the situation is very different. We have it on unchallenged authority that all but two of the Afrikaans-speaking members of the Cabinet are members of the organization.

What authority is that?

It was published in the Sunday Times and I have never seen it challenged. We know now that this information is completely accurate and until convinced of the contrary, I accept that it is true. We know the hon. the Prime Minister is a member of the Broederbond, as are many others. I submit, therefore, that the overwhelming probabilities are that the information published by the Sunday Times is correct. Now we have an entirely different situation: the Government of our country is apparently run by a Cabinet eight-tenths of whose members are also members of the Broederbond. When one knows something about the aims of this organization, that is then an entirely different situation. In regard to the aims of the organization, we know something about that from the published documents. I hoped that at least when the Republic came, bodies of that kind would gradually be dissolved. The shock I felt when I saw from those documents that that was not the case, was very great, particularly when I saw what this body was prepared to meddle with.

Therefore I say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) that the situation now obtaining is very different. I believe it is no exaggeration to say that considerable disharmony has been caused amongst members of the Afrikaans-speaking section of our population by this question, quite apart from the disharmony and the gulf it has caused between the English-speaking section on the one hand and the Afrikaans-speaking section on the other. And yet, as is so often being said, we need the greatest harmony between these two sections in view of the difficult times we are facing. So I would have thought that every great South African would want to bring this question to an end.

It came as a great disappointment to us that this question is now to be handled by a commission which will operate in secret. The hon. Leader of the Opposition was challenged to propose a judicial inquiry. He was pressed to do that after he had stated that, amongst other things, such an inquiry should be a public one. After he had asked for an inquiry and after he had stated that it should be a public inquiry he was dared by the Prime Minister to propose the appointment of such a commission. I think the actual words of the Prime Minister were: “You dare not propose it.” Now that the Prime Minister has got this commission, he is trying to limit as much as possible the damage that can be done to his own organization.

I say this is not near to being parallel with the commission which Lord Denning conducted. There it was a question largely of matters of a personal and unsavoury nature affecting only a very small circle of people.

What about the question of the security of the State?

But here is a matter which concerns the day to day feelings of a vast number of our people. People have, rightly or wrongly, become concerned about this. Knowing what my own feelings and disappointments are, I think I can say that is the case also amongst the English-speaking section and judging from what one hears from one’s Afrikaans-speaking friends this is equally a matter of grave concern to them. This is, therefore, an entirely different situation to that of the Denning Commission. Consequently, I say that this is the wrong commission for such a task. It must be remembered that Judges are not infallible, and one Judge in such a vast inquiry with these terms of reference and the aids he is going to have for eliciting the facts, is certainly in a most unenviable position.

Will you accept the result of that inquiry?

I am stating why I think this is not the way to set about exorcising the disharmony which this powerful body, greatly powerful because of its powerful members, is creating in the life of our country.

In respect of other important commissions of the past, the Press has played a very important role in getting people to accept the work of the commission in addition to bringing forward evidence. I think every member of the police will attest to the value of the Press in helping to bring people forward to come and testify before a court. When you are in possession of certain facts and you see from the newspapers that the matter is going a certain way in conflict with your facts, then is the time to come forward. If, on the other hand, you do not know how the matter is going or how justice may or may not be done, then perhaps you sit back and assume that justice will be done. In this commission the help of the Press will be missed. But even if we assume that little comes to light as a result of this inquiry, it is nevertheless necessary that it be a public inquiry for all to see. Only in that way can we exorcise the difference between the sections which exists as a result of this matter.

I wish to conclude by expressing the hope that the Minister will in future fight hard for our Criminal Code, in the same way as he rightly wishes to fight for law and order. I hope the peace that there is will continue. It is very vital that all of us fight also with enthusiasm to maintain the highest standards, and I hope the Minister will act courageously and do that also. Often the Minister gives us very few facts upon which we can base any rational opinion as to whether one should support that which is being asked for. Consequently we are expected to take these things on trust. Where one has no facts, one has a duty to fight for high standards in our Code. I sincerely hope that the Minister and all those around him will bear that in mind when facing up to their tasks.

I want to start immediately with the hon. member who has just sat down. He has referred to the offer I have made to hon. members on that side of the House, namely, that I am quite prepared to withdraw Clauses 27 and 29 if they can prove that they are prejudicial. I have listened to the arguments of hon. members particularly those of the hon. member for Pinelands. Let me be honest. I asked the hon. member for Pinelands for an example and what example did he give me? He gave me the example of a person being charged with murder because he was caught attending a barbecue! That was all. Seeing that the hon. member has raised this matter I just want to point out that over all these years, even before I became Minister, jurists, Judges in particular, have from time to time asked for our criminal Code to be revised. The hon. member is probably aware of the fact that many requests have been made and many voices raised in this connection. As recently as last year a certain Judge made very strong representations in this connection. I asked the Judge concerned whether he would draw up a new Code. He did so. I had it translated and I sent it to all the Judges in the country as well as to all Attorneys-General, all senior magistrates, the Bar and the Side-Bar. I asked all of them to let me have their comments on the proposed Code by August. Everybody is therefore attending to this matter. I naturally do not know yet what the views of the various bodies are regarding the proposed Code. I only mention this matter so that hon. members may know about it.

I have taken note of the remarks of the hon. member for Houghton—that is the usual attitude of the Progressive Party. One need not be a prophet to predict what would happen to South Africa if her attitude were to be triumphant one day.

There will be lasting peace and safety.

I grant the hon. member that there may perhaps be peace for all time, but not for the White man. In his case it will be the peace of the grave. I need not say anything further about the attitude of the hon. member. I also listened to the hon. member for Hospital and I noted the fact that he was in America. I trust all hon. members know it now. That was really all the hon. member wanted to tell us. Now we all know.

As far as the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) is concerned I wish to state my reaction to the attitude he has adopted. The hon. member said we had been introducing measures for years and that we had created the impression every year that that year’s measure was the final one. To that I said, “Oh! no” by way of interjection. The hon. member will remember that in the days when the present State President was Minister of Justice and I a back-bencher I already adopted the attitude that just as often as it was necessary to introduce legislation to ensure the safety of South Africa, as often was it the duty of the Minister to come to Parliament with such legislation. That has therefore always been my attitude and it will remain my attitude. As a matter of fact, one cannot adopt a different attitude. Surely the hon. member knows we are involved in a cold war and that steps are being taken in that connection from time to time. Surely it would be criminal neglect on the part of the Government if it did not take the necessary steps from time to time to ensure the safety of the State.

The hon. member went further and said:"We have done nothing to solve the problem”. But when I regard the world as a whole and I hear of and see the turbulence and misery that exist everywhere I realize, when I look at South Africa, that in spite of the threats that are being made to-day and will be made in future. South Africa is not only prosperous, judging by general standards, but also very safe. The hon. member asks whether we do not have confidence in South Africa. But surely when you are prepared to fight for something you do so for the very reason that you have confidence in it. And surely we are fighting for South Africa—not only I but the hon. member for Germiston (District) as well. It is because we have confidence in South Africa, and not only confidence, but also because we love South Africa that we are fighting for her. Surely we cannot lie down. That is what people would like us to do. Not one of us want to lie down but there are people who want us to lie down. The hon. member and I, however, do not want to lie down.

The hon. member also has said that “We have done nothing about the root causes”. But surely the hon. member knows what the fundamental reason is for this turbulence and this misery. The fundamental reason lies in the fact that no Bantu sits in this Parliament. The fundamental reason does not lie in the fact that there are not eight Bantu here as is envisaged by the United Party in their policy.

That is not our policy.

Of course your policy is that there should be eight Bantu in this House—eight Bantu representatives. The hon. member for Germiston (District) says it is; the hon. member for Drakensberg says it is not. Well, I am not a member of the United Party caucus.

We have stated our policy very clearly.

Yes, it means eight Bantu representatives in the House of Assembly.

Where do you get that from?

Eight representatives of the Bantu.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said it would be impossible to keep them out in the long run. The hon. member for Yeoville also said it.

Now they are silent!

In any case that was their policy yesterday. I did not listen to this morning’s news so I do not know what the policy is at the moment. (Laughter.) However, I leave it at that because the hon. member for Germiston (District) knows that these are not the things at issue. He knows what is at issue is the principle of “one man, one vote” and that if that cannot be obtained without the use of force then force is to be used. Surely the hon. member knows that is the fundamental reason why we have this problem.

The fundamental reason is race discrimination.

The accused in the Rivonia trial made it very clear, did they not, that they were prepared to commit the most violent acts for the principle of “one man, one vote”. The hon. member also knows that the position would not have been different had the United Party been in power. On the contrary, it would have been much worse. Surely the hon. member has admitted that the United Party cannot satisfy the agitators and the hon. member for Yeoville has quite rightly said that they cannot satisfy the communists. These agitators and communists will surely make more propaganda against the United Party and fight them more strenuously because they believe they will be able to push the United Party further than only eight Bantu in the House of Assembly.

We shall get the support of those who are not agitators.

That is no news to me. I have the support of those who are not agitators and the Government has the support of those who are not agitators. In other words, the hon. member and I are on common ground because we both want to fight the agitators. The only difference is this that whereas those on my side of the House support the steps I wish to take the hon. member cannot put his hand on his heart and say that if he were to take the steps I was taking against agitators he would have the support of everyone on his side. I do not think so.

Unnecessary powers.

I do not think the hon. member will have the support of everybody on his side. Where I have once again introduced a Bill it is very gratifying to know that not only have I the support of this side of the House, not only have I the support of my people outside but, and I repeat this, I also have the support of the majority of those people who perhaps still vote for the United Party. I also know that I have the support of many hon. members opposite. I know it and I am very thankful for it. If the hon. member believes—which he cannot believe in view of the circumstances—that his policy will change the position, that his policy will put an end to these attacks on South Africa, attacks not only in the form of words but in deeds, he is wrong because it will not. On the contrary his policy is an open invitation to those people to realize that if they only agitated a little more and made a few more threats and resorted to more violence, they would ultimately get what they wanted in South Africa.

That is not true.

The hon. member said we were doing nothing or little “to eliminate the source of friction”. But I cannot agree with the hon. member and in the position in which I find myself I can judge very well. I make bold to say, and I do not think anybody can contradict me, that race relationships have never been as good as they are at the moment. I believe that and I have reason to believe that. I have reason to be very grateful for that. I gave the reasons during the debate on my Vote. I believe the relationship between White and non-White is much better than it was. But I also believe, and I am even more grateful for that, that the relationship between the Afrikaans and English-speaking sections is much better than it has ever been in the history of South Africa. The Republic has done something to all of us, and the hon. member is aware of that. I have already said it in this House, and I am grateful for having seen with my own eyes what the Republic has brought in its wake, that in spite of our political differences, that South Africa is beginning to gather her children around herself.

Separate schools!

And her children speak both English and Afrikaans. That is what the Republic has brought about thanks to the initiative of this side of the House. That has been a wonderful service they have rendered to South Africa. The hon. member alleges that the existence of an organization like the Broederbond “is an insult to every English-speaking South African”. The hon. member for Pinelands on the other hand alleges that the entire Cabinet, except the two English-speaking members, are members of the Afrikaner Broederbond. If that is the position it is the best testimonial that could be given to the Broederbond. The accusation is levelled at us that it is the Afrikaner Broederbond which is causing discord between the English- and Afrikaans-speaking sections but then the hon. member says, on the best authority possible, namely, on the authority of the Sunday Times … and who can dispute that?

Are you disputing it?

Far be it for me to disillusion the hon. member. If I disillusioned him about the Sunday Times what would he have to believe in? I must therefore leave him there. Let us, for the sake or argument, assume the hon. member for Pinelands is right as well as the Sunday Times. In that case, surely the fact that a Cabinet which consists entirely of Broederbonders, a Cabinet in which they are conspiring against the English-speaking people, takes in two English-speaking members, is a good testimonial! Surely the hon. member for Pinelands gets his information from the Sunday Times. He should ask them. But let us judge the matter on its merits. The hon. member for Germiston (District) who is a senior member of this House, alleges that the existence of this organization is an insult to the English-speaking people in South Africa. The hon. member will get an opportunity to prove that, because if it were true that this organization wanted to do harm to the English-speaking people, as he says it does, there will be ample opportunity of investigating that, because one of the terms of reference the hon. the Prime Minister has laid down for the commission is the very question of whether it damages the relationship between the English and Afrikaans-speaking sections with a view to bringing about strife and national disunity and undermining national unity. That is one of the questions which will be investigated by the Judge. If the hon. member for Germiston (District) is serious when he says that is what the Broederbond is doing I personally should be very grateful if he would give evidence on that aspect. But perhaps the hon. member will feel disinclined to do so. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) is at liberty to go to the commission with the Sunday Times in his hand. There is nothing to prevent him from doing so. I look forward to see who will appear before the commission. There is my friend, the main witness, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). Sir, I do not make promises lightly but let me promise the hon. member for Orange Grove in advance that if he should get so far as to give evidence before that commission of his own accord I shall collect money in order to erect a monument to him and I shall commission Mr. Harpley.

Order! The hon. Minister must return to the Bill.

I want to conclude, Sir. I think I have replied to all the arguments. In conclusion I just want to say this to the hon. member for Germiston (District): The hon. member has tendered me his support in my fight against subversive elements. I am glad about that and I appreciate the support I shall receive from him and other hon. members because I need it, not for myself and my party, but for South Africa. I also appreciate the difficulty of the hon. member and that of the Leader of the Opposition. I understand why they have to act the way they sometimes do. That does not make me despondent because I understand the position. There are certain elements which they have to take into account. Not only have they to take those elements into account but they have to be careful that they do not lose the support of those newspapers which occasionally side with them. I appreciate all that and that is why I do not blame hon. members for adopting that attitude.

Question put: That the word “now” stand part of the motion,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—76: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhöut, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H, J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouche, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.;1 Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, LA. F.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P, C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. L; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H..; Steyn, J. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—43: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Cadman, R. M.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N; G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P., A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L. B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The object is to limit the definition of “munitions” as it reads in this clause by making it compulsory for the Minister to consult with the Minister of Economic Affairs in regard to what other things, other than those that are clearly munitions or associated with military purposes, should be included as munitions. The definition as it now stands is an extremely wide one which would entitle the Minister to enter into any field of activity by selling or manufacturing any item he may wish. In order to ensure that private enterprise should be protected against competition by a State-supported and State-financed manufacturing industry, we move this amendment to limit the powers of the Minister by consultation.

I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I just seek clarity from the Minister in respect of the constitution of the board. I do so because of the discussion in the second-reading debate last night, when the Minister indicated to me that the purchase of military equipment, or its manufacture—before that is done there will be the normal evaluation by a team of military authorities. But in the constitution of this board there is no representation whatever of the miliary authorities. I ask why that is so merely for this reason. The Minister has indicated clearly that the existing Defence Production Board, the one that was established in 1952—it was clearly stated by the then Minister that this would form a civil section in the Secretariat, and that Colonel Driver would head the production office. Now it would appear that on this board there will be no member of the military authority as such. I should like to know in what manner will the liaison be established between the Defence authorities and this Production Board. I think it is an important point upon which we need clarity.

May I also ask this question. The existing Defence Resources Board is an advisory body to the Minister and it is not in any way being disturbed by the establishment of this Production Board. Is the liaison going to be through the Defence Resources Board, or direct with the Minister, or through the Secretariat, or will it be with the military authorities through the Commandant-General’s Office? I think we need complete clarity on this, in view of the statement made in the White Paper that before any equipment is purchased, manufactured or otherwise acquired by the military authorities, everything will first be evaluated by a Defence team. I hope the Minister can give us clarity on this.

Following on what the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has said, and in view of the wide powers of this board, I would say that the whole success of this board will depend on its composition, on its members. As the hon. member has said, there is nothing in this clause suggesting that any of the members will be members of the Defence Force. It says in sub-section (d) that two shall be persons with special knowledge of the functions of the board. That may cover it, but a board such as this could never function satisfactorily unless there are members from the Defence Force on it. There is the Navy, the Air Force and the Ground Forces, and to-day, with armies completely mobile, it is necessary to have this experience on the board. If there is nobody with military experience on it, the board will consist entirely of laymen, with no knowledge at all of what is required in the Army to-day. I think the Minister should tell us that there will be at least two senior Defence Force officers on the board, one of whom should, I think, be a senior technical officer and another a senior combat officer who has had experience in the field. I hope the Minister will give us some information in this direction.

This is a very small point, but I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to Clause 3 (3) (a), which says that a member of the board shall vacate his office if he resigns or dies. I wonder whether the “or dies” is not superfluous.

It is to make assurance doubly sure.

Very well. I do not think we want any dead bodies on this board.

In connection with the last point raised by the member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) I can only say that we want to make assurance doubly sure. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) asked the same question. He wants to know what co-operation there will be between the board and the Resources Council. Let me try once again to make the matter clear. My vocabulary may perhaps be found wanting in this regard. This Munitions Production Board takes over the functions of our “ordnance” workshops and the munitions production office, as they exist at present. Nothing will be changed in connection with the procedure that exists in regard to the entering into of contracts and the valuation of munitions that have to be obtained. This board can only manufacture or have manufactured or purchase those munitions which we of Defence ask them to manufacture or have manufactured or to purchase. After all, the legislation is very clear.

Order! I am sorry to have to point this out, but both the hon. member for Turffontein and the hon. the Minister are out of order. The activities of the board are defined in Clause 4. The hon. the Minister must confine himself to the constitution of the board only.

My question was whether the military authorities would be represented on the board.

But the board works for the military authorities and manufactures what the military authorities ask it to manufacture. That is why it is not specifically provided in the constitution of the board that military personnel whall be represented on the board, although it states very explicitly in (d) that two members of the board shall be persons having special knowledge of the functions of the board, and this is also my reply to the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney). We shall have to ensure that those two people are fully aware of what our requirements are. I cannot mention their names now.

Will they be military personnel?

I do not think that they will be on the permanent staff. I do not think that that would be right. But they will be appointed because they are people who are fully acquainted with our requirements. Our military authorities will make their requirements known. All the valuations still have to be made and these people can only act in accordance with the instructions we give them.

Arising from the Minister’s reply, I was a little disappointed because he said he could not appoint anybody from his present staff. The matter is so important that I would even like to see him retire two members of his Permanent Staff so that they may become civilians and serve on this board. If there is any difficulty about their appointment from the Defence Staff, as full-time personnel, I think he should make arrangements for them to become civilians. That is most important. There have been changes in the whole set-up of warfare and it is very necessary to have such people on the board. This board will be the senior board where decisions will be made, and which will be consulted by the Minister, and I think it is wrong to have only laymen on that board. I would not like to see military men who have been out of touch with military affairs for a number of years sitting on that board. Many of us who served in the last war and have read the journals know that things have changed. There is a new approach to warfare and equipment. If the Minister cannot appoint two members of his staff, I would like him to retire two senior officers and put them on this board. It is no good putting has-beens on it. It is necessary to have experienced men there.

How am I to understand the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney?) He says that these people must have a military training and that I must dismiss two of my permanent staff so that they can be appointed to that board. Why is it necessary to do so? We have so many high-ranking members of the Armed Forces who have retired. Why should we terminate the services of our present staff in order to enable them to become members of that board? We have many people who can serve on the board.

Second them to serve on the board.

No, I cannot accept that.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I move the following amendment—

This is the amendment which is printed in the name of the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), who is ill, and I do not think there is any need to debate it. It limits the power to manufacture and supply, only in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs.

I accept that, and I move the amendment printed in my name—

I come back again to the point I raised in the second reading and which the Minister did not deal with in h;s reply. I seek complete clarity in regard to the functions of the board. As far as I read these functions, the board shall have power in terms of paragraph (a) to manufacture and supply any munitions required by the State. In other words, having manufactured the munitions they will then supply them, and the Minister has indicated on what basis they will be supplied to the defence authorities. But when you come to paragraph (c), it clearly says that the board shall have power in consultation with the State Tender Board to enter into agreements within or outside the Republic for the manufacture of munitions, but it also contains the words “or supply of munitions”. In other words, as I read the sub-section, the board will not only manufacture munitions but will have the right, on behalf of the defence authorities, by agreement with anybody else, to purchase war supplies in terms of the very broad definition of “munitions” and supply them to the defence authorities. When I spoke last night, I outlined the first function of the board as being merely to manufacture, and the Minister said that was right.

No, I was wrong last night.

Are we now to understand that the function of this board is not only to manufacture or to purchase raw materials for the manufacture of munitions, but that it is also the function of the board to purchase and supply to the Armed Forces anything that they may require in terms of this definition? And the definition is of course so wide that it embraces anything. In other words, the board can say that it will purchase aeroplanes in France and supply them to the defence authorities. What do the words “or supply” mean? In other words, it is not only manufacturing, it is also supplying to the defence authorities. The general impression that we gathered was that the primary function of this board was to manufacture munitions, and that is why the other provisions are included for the take-over of the ordnance shops and so on. Sir, I think the Minister should give us complete clarity on this point. The hiatus that I see is this: We vote money under the Defence Vote to meet the capital and other requirements of defence. If this Bill is passed, I see nothing that prevents the Secretariat from purchasing everything directly or the board making separate purchases so you are going to have two sources of supply. The one is accounted for separately under the Defence Vote by moneys voted for the board, and the other is accounted for separately by the Secretary for Defence. Sir, this does not seem to me to be very satisfactory. We have asked for the appointment of a special Select Committee on defence expenditure, and here when you investigate this matter and look at it more closely you immediately find that these difficulties arise, and yet the hon. the Minister continually turns down our suggestion that a special Select Committee be appointed to examine defence expenditure. I think the Minister, in all fairness, should tell us clearly what the functions of this board are going to be; he should tell us now how the wording in paragraph (c) is going to be interpreted by him and by the Secretariat and by the defence authorities in regard to the acquisition of war materials.

Mr. Chairman, I can really not say anything further in connection with this matter. I have explained over and over and once again that this board is only taking over the functions of our Defence Ordnance Production Office and our Defence Ordnance Workshop. It is only taking those functions over and the Secretariate will continue to fulfill all the other functions as in the past. I have nothing more to say to the hon. member in that connection. The clause reads—

That is correct.

What are you complaining about then?

I really do not know what the hon. member’s complaint is. I cannot take the matter any further.

Let me make the position quite clear. When we discussed this matter last night, I said that I was at a loss to understand the hon. the Minister’s introductory statement, which the Minister read out—I have since read it too—because if you read what the functions of this board are, it means that the board can only acquire and supply what the defence authorities ask them to supply. In other words, it has no powers of procurement; it cannot of its own accord advise or buy for the Defence Department. To that the hon. the Minister quite clearly replied “that is right.” Now, however, he says that I was wrong last night. What are we to understand? The Minister says now that he was wrong last night when I put the position quite clearly to him in terms of what he had said in his second-reading speech. Last night he said that “I was right” and now that I put the point to him again he says that “I am wrong”. He cannot have it both ways. Sir, I ask the hon. the Minister a clear-cut question: Is this board going to buy or procure or supply military equipment for the Defence Department, or is the board only going to manufacture what the defence authorities ask them to manufacture?

Let me once again state the position clearly: This board will manufacture certain things for defence on the instructions of the Department of Defence. The board will acquire certain things on the instructions of defence; the board will fulfil all these functions at the request of defence. I cannot state it more clearly.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

In line 9, to omit “any other Department of State” and to substitute “the Ammunition Section of the South African Mint solely”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

As in the case of the Bill we passed last year this Bill is, naturally, not a party measure. Nor has it been discussed by my party, just as last year’s measure was not approved by my party as such. Every hon. member is at liberty to adopt any standpoint he wants to in this connection. When I introduced the Liquor Act last year I informed hon. members that certain matters were outstanding and that I would deal with them this year, and that is indeed what this Bill is doing.

I do not think it is necessary for me to explain this Bill in detail. I shall therefore just give hon. members a short explanation of each clause. The first clause deals with the restaurant of the Transvaal Provincial Administration. Hon. members are aware of the problems and difficulties which exist in that connection. The restaurant is situated on the other side of the street the Provincial Building where the Provincial Council sits. You have, of course, the provincial offices on the other side of the street where there is a restaurant and where the Administrator, members of the Executive Committee, the Provincial Secretary, and other senior officials have their functions from time to time. That has given rise to difficulties and the object of this Bill is to remove those difficulties. We are not only making it applicable to the Transvaal Provincial Building but the power conferred in this clause is also conferred on other provincial councils who may perhaps erect similar buildings. I just want to state very clearly that this does not mean that liquor will be served to employees in the cafeteria in that building. It only refers to official functions of the provincial council as such.

Then I come to Clause 2. Clause 2 deals with monopolistic tendencies which may possibly develop where certain hotels or a large number of hotels, for example, are taken over by one organization. That may give rise to problems and the object of Clause 2 is to prevent any possible undesirable position from developing. I can assure hon. members that I have discussed this matter with the bodies concerned and those who are possibly interested in this matter; I also understand their problems. They adopt a certain attitude in that connection; that attitude will be stated here and I shall gladly listen to it. I want to state very clearly that the object of the clause is not to deal with minor local matters. The object is purely to deal with large monopolistic tendencies which may develop.

I now come to Clause 3. Section 42 of the existing Act provides, inter alia, fot a liquor licence to be transferred only in those cases where the holder of the licence sells or disposes of his business or of the buildings in respect of which the licence has been issued while that licence is valid. It often happens, however, that a licensee wants to transfer his licence to his son or manager or somebody for other reasons, for example, health reasons. We are now providing that a licence may be transferred for any reason. Hon. members will realize, of course, that that makes the position of many licensees very much easier.

Then I come to Clause 4. The insertion of a new section in terms of Clause 5 necessitates a reference to Section 45bis in this clause. This is, therefore, only a consequential amendment.

The object of Clause 5 is to give the Minister control over the transfer of liquor licences in order to prevent certain organizations from extending their interests in such a way that a monopolistic position develops in the liquor trade.

Then I come to Clause 6. Hon. members will remember that I said last year that we had tried to get the various clubs and organizations of the hotel industry to come to an agreement. We could not come to an agreement while the debate was on last year and I then promised hon. members that I would get the hotel association, Fedhasa, and the clubs together in an effort to get them to come to some agreement. I had them together in my office and after that they discussed the matter with the officials. The hotel association and the clubs could not come to a 100 per cent agreement but did come to some agreement and that agreement is embodied in Clause 6. I think it satisfies the hotel association.

When business was suspended I was dealing with the mutual problems experienced by the clubs on the one hand and Fedhasa on the other hand and I explained how I had arranged a meeting in order to enable them to discuss their problems. There was a complaint—and I believe it was a legitimate complaint—on the part of the Hotel Association that the clubs were engaging in activities which were a little beyond their province. The agreement that was reached, as far as it was possible to reach an agreement, between Fedhasa on the one hand and the clubs on the other hand is embodied in Clause 6 of the Bill which defines the scope of the activities of the clubs as far as the Liquor Act is concerned. The Hotel Association welcomes these provisions and I think that they will be welcomed generally.

As far as Clause 7 is concerned hon. members are aware of the fact that Section 69 (2) of the Liquor Act provides amongst other things that no liquor licence other than a wholesaler’s or foreign liquor licence may be granted in respect of a building in which any other business is carried on. It so happens that the theatre in Johannesburg, built by the Johannesburg City Council, has a licence. There are problems in connection with the doors of the licensed building and the theatre and the restaurant section of the licence and the clause is aimed at making it possible for the Johannesburg theatre to continue to retain its licence. I do not think that I need say more in this regard. This clause is being inserted at the request of the Johannesburg City Council together with the Civic Centre there and I believe that the insertion of this provision will be welcome.

I come now to Clause 8. Section 71 bis (7) gives the Minister the power to authorize the holder of a licence of an accommodation establishment, amongst other things to sell liquor for consumption outside the licensed premises and any place within a rural area within the district in which the particular institution is situated. This is the case in which we made provision whereby an hotel could move its off-consumption premises to premises other than those on which the hotel business was being run. Hon. members will remember that we discussed this matter last year and that it was unanimously accepted by hon. members on both sides. There are many good hotels on the platteland which are situated away from towns in picturesque mountainous surroundings or other restful places. Those hotels also have that privilege but as the Act now stands they have to move their off-consumption premises to some other place on the platteland. We are now making it possible for them to move their off-consumption premises to any place in the magisterial district in which the particular hotel is situated. Hon. members are aware of the fact that there are, for example, hotels of this nature in the Boland mountains which provide very good service. Hon. members will agree that this concession should be given to them.

I come now to Clause 9. The amount of the membership fees provided for in Section 74 (2) (h) is also being increased on the recommendation of the clubs on the one hand and Fedhasa on the other hand. Fedhasa felt that club membership fees were far too low for liquor licence purposes; the clubs agreed in this regard and this clause now gives effect to the agreement between the clubs and Fedhasa.

Clause 10: Section 75 (2) (b) (i) provides, amongst other things, that certain holders of wholesale liquor licences and holders of bottle store licences may not delivery liquor from the licensed premises on half-holidays before 9 a.m. or after 3 p.m. this provision makes control difficult because it concentrates upon deliveries from licensed premises. Unfortunately, there are licensees—and I want to warn those licensees to give up this practice—who are participating in the smuggling trade, to the extent to which their trade still exists. If one discovers that liquor is being delivered on a half-holiday, even if one is reasonably sure that it is smuggled liquor, one is powerless to take action because one cannot prove when that liquor left the licensed premises. One finds a man with a lorry-load of liquor at 11 p.m. and one can be reasonably sure that he is smuggling that liquor but one has nothing against him because he simply maintains that the liquor left the premises before 3 o’clock in the afternoon. It is in order to meet that position that Clause 10 is being inserted. Hon. members may perhaps feel that 3 p.m. is too early and I am quite prepared to hear arguments in that connection and to effect an amendment in this regard if it should appear necessary to do so.

I come now to Clause 11. Hon. members are aware of the fact that wholesalers may not deliver less than two gallons to one client at a time. The retailers, the bottle stores, complain, quite justifiably, that the wholesaler does, as it were, keep the liquor on his premises for his client, although he may not sell less than two gallons at a time, and then the client fetches that liquor from him bottle by bottle. This is a blatant evasion of the provisions of the Act. Hon. members will remember that I gave quasi-wholesalers the opportunity to convert their businesses; there is therefore no reason why the wholesalers should try to circumvent the provisions of the Act in this way. This provision is welcomed most heartily by all the retailers.

Clause 12 deals with ship licences. Section 79ter (2) provides, amongst other things, that the holder of a wholesale liquor licence may not sell or deliver any liquor from a depot approved of by a magistrate to any person who is not the holder of a liquor licence. A wholesaler in Cape Town, for example, can therefore not sell or deliver liquor from his depot at Port Elizabeth to the master of a ship or his representative. This matter is now being rectified in Clause 12 because it was never the intention to restrict ship-chandlers in this way. They fall into a category of their own and it is therefore not necessary to confine them within the category of ordinary licensees.

Clause 13: As the position is at present the holder of a wine and malt licence can also sell spirits when he obtains a temporary liquor licence. At the end of the function in respect of which the temporary licence has been obtained, the licensee sometimes finds that he has spirits on his hands which he cannot dispose of lawfully. In order to prevent a situation of this nature it is desirable that such licence-holders should not be permitted to sell spirits in terms of a temporary liquor licence. The amendment contained in the clause will rectify this matter.

Clause 14: The insertion of Sections 100bis and 100sex which make provision for special authority for the sale of liquor to the Bantu and special authority for the sale of liquor by associations of Coloureds or associations of Asiatics, respectively, requires an amendment to Section 88 in order to enable distillers, manufacturers or brewers also to sell their products to the holders of an authority in terms of these sections. As a result of the repeal of Section 82 by Section 85 of Act No. 88 of 1963 it is also necessary to repeal paragraph (a) of the proviso to Section 88 in order to make provision for the exemption of the holder of a wine farmers’ licence from some of the provisions thereof.

Clause 15: It is necessary that relief be given from the restrictions imposed on the employment of certain persons in the liquor trade by Section 102. Hon. members will know that in terms of the old Act, if a man had a conviction against him he could not be connected with the liquor trade for five years. I think that this is an unnecessarily long time and I think that if we make this period two years we shall be doing the correct thing in respect of those persons whom, after all, we also want to help to rehabilitate.

Clause 16 deals with the credit given by liquor wholesalers to liquor retailers. This is being inserted at the request of the wholesalers but as it appears to me that it is not acceptable to the retailers, I am quite prepared to reconsider this matter if hon. members will advance arguments in this regard.

The amendment contained in Clause 17 is necessitated by the amendment of Section 130 by Section 94 of Act No. 88 of 1963. The last-mentioned amendment abolished the ban on the trade in methylated spirits without a licence issued by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise. We now require a person who sells methylated spirits to be in possession of a general dealer’s licence.

The amendment contained in Clause 18 is also necessitated by the amendment of Section 130 by Section 94 of Act No. 88 of 1963.

Clause 19: Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Liquor Amendment Act, 1963, which empowers a liquor licensing board to extend the hours of sale in certain cases has, with a view to the amendment contained in Clause 10 (c), become superfluous and is accordingly being repealed.

Clause 20: Amendments such as those contained in Clauses 9, 10 (b) (c) and (d) and 16, cannot be put into operation immediately because they can affect rights in terms of existing licences or contracts. It is desirable, therefore, that provision be made for the various provisions of this proposed Bill to be put into operation on various dates. That is the essence of this Bill, Mr. Speaker, I move.

In introducing this Bill the hon. the Minister has correctly said that legislation relating to liquor interests is on a non-party basis. In the past there has been ample room for discussion on measures of this nature. I think I can assure him on this occasion—and relieve him of any misery he may be suffering—that I do not think the debate on this measure will last very long. Unlike other measures of this kind which have come before this House in the past this is one of a non-contentious nature. What is being done in this Bill is to clear up a number of the problems and difficulties that have arisen. It is clear that this Bill comes forward with the solutions. The Minister is introducing this measure after wide consultation, where that has been necessary, with the various interests concerned and after getting a very large measure of agreement, if not entire agreement, on the Bill.

There are one or two matters which do concern the industry as such, particularly the hotel industry, and I should like the Minister to make a statement on these matters when he replies. Other speakers on this side will refer to those matters in greater detail. We have the vexted question of classification which has bedevilled the industry for a number of years. We have now reached the stage where the industry accepts classification. From the announcement which was made it would appear, from a practical point of view, that it would be impossible for a great number of these hotels, hotels which carry on their trade quite legitimately and keep up a good standard, to be classified at all. They are in danger of losing their licences and I should ask the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to their case.

I would also invite the hon. the Minister to make a statement as to what his attitude is towards that section of the hotel industry which falls under the Department of Justice. Some 20 years ago I was the chairman of an hotel investigating committee. That committee recommended that many of the functions of the legitimate hotel trade under the jurisdiction of the Minister’s Department, should fall more particularly under tourism and other Departments, such as the Department of Agriculture. Should our attitude towards this matter not become more mature so that these various aspects could perhaps be administered by the appropriate Departments, Departments more particularly concerned with those aspects? I think, that would do the hotel industry as such a great deal of good. They feel that no matter how effective and efficient the administration of the Department of Justice is, it is just not the Department that should be concerned with what is after all a commercial venture.

I know there is an Hotel Commission investigating the matter, but I would welcome a statement by the Minister in that regard. As I have said, we do not intend to hold this Bill up or to have a long debate on it. The Minister has given us a full explanation of the various clauses. We are aware of the fact that some amendments will be put forward, amendments which I trust he will accept. I know suggestions have already been made to him and they can be considered in the Committee Stage, after the second reading.

Sir, I wish to support the hon. the member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) in the expression of appreciation he extended to the Minister for his sympathetic and understanding consideration of the problems which beset the liquor trade. I believe that no other business in South Africa is as closely restricted in its day to day activities by legislation of this House as is that industry. If you are a grocer or a butcher or a baker, you have certain basic rules to observe, but for the rest you conduct your business as you wish to do. But this Parliament, in its wisdom, has decided that those who deal in the commodity of liquor should be restricted from minute to minute and hour to hour by the conditions and the regulations which flow from the Liquor Act. Therefore, where the livelihood of people is so closely concerned, it is gratifying that the Minister should adopt the attitude which he has adopted this year and last year towards the problems of that industry. I want to express my sincere appreciation for the attitude the Minister has adopted in the discussions which members of this House and others have had with him in regard to these problems.

I agree that this is an administrative measure and that many of the points should be discussed in more detail during the Committee Stage. But there are one or two points which I feel should be raised at this stage, particularly where amendments are proposed. I would like to give the Minister notice that with reference to Clauses 2 and 5, where the issue of monopolistic conditions is raised through the power to veto the granting of a licence or the transfer of a licence, I shall move an amendment which specifies that that veto will only be exercised where a monopoly is against the public interests. In other words, there are monopolies which are in the public interests and others which are not. I shall deal with that matter in detail when we are in Committee.

In regard to Clause 6 which deals with clubs I think this is also a clause which has been well considered and I welcome it. I would ask the Minister at this stage, to save unnecessary discussion in Committee, to confirm that the reference in this clause to “social activity which is normally and habitually” part of the activities of a club means social activities which are the usual practice of the club for its members and does not refer to a club, for instance, which has habitually held a Chamber of Commerce annual convention with the accompanying dinners and parties once a year.

That was what I understood the spirit of the agreement was.

The Minister confirms that it does not refer to those public activities which are held once a year perhaps at a club but which are not habitually held. In other words, activities which are not held week in and week out. If that is the case I believe both club and hotel interests will agree that this is a very reasonable amendment. Subject to the qualification that public activities will not be regarded as habitual merely because they have in the past taken place, I think both parties to the dispute will agree completely with the amendment.

I would like to ask the Minister to explain why he feels restaurants should have no late hours’ privileges as laid down in Clause 6. He removes that right from restaurants and applies it to malt and wine licences. I do not disagree, but I think for the sake of clarity it would be interesting to know why this change is brought about. I have not had an opportunity of discussing this with anyone; it is a matter which was brought to my attention a very short time ago.

The hon. member for Von Brandis has mentioned the question of classification under Clause 8. Clause 8 amends the section which gives the Minister the power of classification and while it does not deal with the particular aspect of classification it deals with the Minister ’s powers. I should, therefore, like to take the opportunity of mentioning to the Minister that in the Cape, for instance, over 70 per cent of the existing hotels cannot qualify for classification in respect of the provisions laid down regarding their structure. I want to appeal to the Minister to introduce, in terms of the powers which the section we are now amending gives him, a seventh group of classified hotels. At the moment we have de luxe hotels and the five stars. Between 70 per cent and 75 per cent of the hotels in South Africa will be excluded from a licence in terms of this classification procedure. I would ask the Minister to consider a seventh group, to be “classified;—unstarred”, a group which conforms, in regard to hygienic conditions, cleanliness, service, quality of equipment and all other aspects, with the conditions laid down but which, because of structural details, such as 25 per cent of the bedrooms having private bathrooms or because the size is slightly smaller than that laid down, do not qualify. I would ask the Minister to introduce this seventh group so that this type of hotel can be classified and grouped as “unstarred”. If the Minister does not do this the public of South Africa face the prospect of losing 71 per cent in the case of the Cape, 75 per cent to 80 per cent in the case of the platteland and 90 per cent in the case of some areas, of the hotel facilities available to them. I hope the hon. the Minister will make a satement in that regard.

As far as Clause 10 is concerned I shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage. In areas like Johannesburg and Cape Town, where you have far-flung suburbs, it is impossible to complete deliveries of liquor in two hours. I will ask the Minister to accept an amendment making it 5 p.m. instead of 3 p.m. That means that the liquor can leave the bottle store at 1 p.m. but that it must be delivered before 5 p.m. on the same day. Particularly in Saturday midday traffic, it takes you nearly an hour to get to the suburbs before you start delivering.

We welcome Clause 11 in regard to wholesalers. It is a reasonable amendment.

I want to raise one point under Clause 13. Wine and malt licensees are limited to selling wine and malt if they get a temporary licence. But this Session Parliament introduced a Bill allowing the import of wine to be processed in South Africa and sold by local manufacturers. In terms of the Act as it stands a wine and malt licensee is only enitled to sell locally made wine and malt. Parliament has now agreed to the imporation of wine and some step will have to be taken to overcome a difficulty I foresee. There is an imported content possible in the wine sold by the K.W.V. and in the processing of which imported wine has been used. Technically a malt and wine licensee will not be entitled to sell such wine.

It is almost impossible to say which is imported and which is not. That refers to wine that has been obviously imported.

I thank the Minister for that assurance. I thought that was the position but I just wanted the Minister’s assurance.

In regard to Clause 14 I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he would make a statement in respect of the position regarding wine farmers’ licences which in recent times have tended to become slightly more than was originally intended by this Legislature. Wine farmers’ licences, which are now exempted from certain provisions of the Act, in terms of the amendment to the relevant section, are tending to result in the opening of depots and the running of almost full-scale bottle stores in the urban areas nearest to those wine farmers. Instead of the wine farmer selling his wine from the farm, as was originally contemplated, he is in fact opening up a fullscale liquor selling organization in competition with licensed organizations in the towns and villages.

Are you referring to the wholesaler wine farmer?

No, I am not referring to them. These are wine farmers who do not have a licence other than a wine farmers’ licence. The producer wholesalers are controlled. These are wine farmers who, for R1, buy a licence and sell as much wine as they like. They are not limited to selling it from their farms, so they can hire premises in a town and open up what is in fact a wine bottle store. They do not have to pay the normal licence fees; they do not have to apply for a licence; there is no opportunity of objecting to the granting of such a licence; they are free from all the limitations of this Act; they can sell their products from a depot as though it were bottle stores, without restriction.

Are they not subject to a minimum limit?

There is a minimum limit not a maximum, and the minimum limit is very low. We have a special clause here to deal with the minimum quantity in regard to public wholesalers thereby recognizing that problem, but nothing to deal with this problem. I hope the Minister will issue a statement when he replies assuring the trade that this is a matter which will receive his consideration.

The question of trade credit is one on which I will move an amendment. I believe that where trader deals with trader, that is a matter for normal commercial practice. It is unreasonable that the Legislature should be asked to protect a section of the trade from their own weaknesses. That is what it amounts to. We are saying that those who give 120 to 150 days’ credit should be limited to 75 days. The people who have asked for this are the very people who are giving this credit. They are now asking Parliament to act as the excuse for them limiting the credit they give to their own customers. I think it is wrong that Parliament should be used as an instrument for regulating normal trade activities.

Do you think the retail trade is against that?

The retail trade is completely against this, so is the hotel trade. There is also the problem of when a person dies. His estate must be sued within 75 days, otherwise no claim can be lodged for normal trade liquor debts. I agree that, as far as the public is concerned, we should discourage as far as possible people buying liquor on credit. Those who want to buy liquor for their own use should be limited as far as possible to cash or near cash. That I accept. The ordinary person should not get into debt over liquor. But where a company buys from a company, that is a normal commercial transaction and a matter which should be left to the free interplay of supply, demand and competition to determine. I think we, as a Parliament, would be lending ourselves to assisting a section of the trade to limit the credit they give which, because of their own weakness, they are not prepared to do themselves. Nothing stops a wholesaler from saying “I demand 30 days or 60 days’ payment”. He can do that to-morrow; why should we do it for him? I think it is wrong. So I shall move for the deletion of that proposed amendment.

Finally I hope that the Minister will announce, when he replies, that he plans to consolidate the Liquor Act next year so that the innumerable amendments can be brought together in one measure and easily understood. There are other minor matters which we shall raise in the Committee, but I felt that at this stage I should give notice of the issues which I intend to raise at the Committee Stage.

I am pleased that this Bill has been accorded the reception that has been given to it. I want to come immediately to the two questions put to me by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty). The first question is in connection with classification and the second one is in connection with the future of the hotel industry in as far as the classification of the industry under certain Ministers is concerned.

As far as classification is concerned, I just want to point out that licensees have five-years in which to comply with the requirements. In terms of the existing Act that period can also be extended. In my discussions with the hotel industry I made it very clear to them that if unsurmountable problems arose and those problems were brought to the notice of the Department, there was no reason at all why the period could not be extended, as is indeed provided for in the Act. As far as classification is further concerned, I want to say that I am convinced that the Liquor Board, in close co-operation with the Hotel Commission, has done a particularly good piece of work in a short period as far as the question of classification is concerned. I must honestly say that I was impressed by the way in which these people did this work in such a short time. It was difficult and comprehensive work; it was not an easy task. I think that everyone who is interested in the industry will admit that the work that has been done by these persons in such a short time is a standard work. My hearty thanks to the members of the Liquor Board who were entrusted with this work and to the Hotel Commission for having worked in such close co-operation with one another. I think that the fact that the question of classification has eventually progressed this far is also generally welcomed.

There is a difference between the classification of the hotel industry and the classification of the Liquor Board but I think I am quite right in saying that as far as 99 per cent of this work is concerned they are in full agreement with one another. There is a difference in regard to the number of bathrooms and a difference in connection with floor space. For our purpose, however, this is of minor importance.

In association with this there is the question raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). I think that hon. members will also agree with me that if we want to raise the standard of our hotels we must not lower classification. I think that we are all in agreement in this connection. We will never be able to raise the standard of our hotels if we lower classification. Hon. members will know that the only reason why I want classification—I am speaking now strictly from the point of view of the Liquor Act and irrespective of the standard of the hotel—is because I want to give the hotels which came into being after 1928 the privilege of off-consumption licences in order to allow them to compete on an equal footing with the hotels which came into being before 1928. For the rest, I am not particularly concerned about the position except that we are all concerned about raising the standard of our hotels. I do not want to penalize these people. The argument has been used against me that there are going to be hotels which are going to find it impossible to make the structural alterations which are required for off-consumption purposes. I do not want to penalize those hotels. I understand that problem. This point was brought to my notice by the hon. member for Durban (Point), the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) and some of my other colleagues, and I understand the matter. The classification of hotels will eventually not rest with me. One is inclined to feel that the Hotel Commission will recommend the passing of an Hotels Act, and that classification, apart from the classification under the Liquor Act, will then flow from that Hotels Act. I do not want to anticipate nor do I want to prejudice this fact. All I want to do is to give privileges. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) and others appears to me to be a solution to the problem with which we are faced. I have not consulted the Liquor Board in this connection. It was impossible for me to do so for reasons of which the hon. member is aware but it appears to me as though this is the course we must adopt. It also appears to me that we are going to do this under the Act and it appears to me further that I must make use of the suggestion of the hon. member for Durban (Point) to give privileges to those people, which is indeed what I want to do. This then will not bring about classification in the other sense of the word but it will simply mean that these people will be given the privilege I want them to have.

They retain their rights.

I realize now that some uncertainty has arisen in regard to this matter and I shall as soon as possible during the recess make an official announcement in this connection so that the existing uncertainty can be removed completely. If I make an announcement it will be on the basis of what the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said.

The hon. member for Von Brandis also raised the question of the Ministry which would be entrusted with these matters. I want to tell the hon. member that personally, I agree wholeheartedly with him. For reasons which are known to all of us, historical reasons, the Department of Justice has been saddled with the question of the hotel business as such. But as I told the hon. member for Durban (Point), I am inclined to believe that the Hotel Commission will recommend an Hotels Act and this will of course bring about a completely new set-up for the hotel business. If this is done, nothing will give me greater pleasure than to recommend to the Cabinet that this matter be taken over and dealt with by another Ministry. I think that that is the logical place for it. I think that we have been successful over the years, and particularly last year, in removing the stigma which has always clung to this matter in the past—the reason why it was necessary to place this matter under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice—and I do not think that we should allow that stigma to cling to the matter any longer.

The hon. member put a question to me in connection with Clause 6 (b). He asked why this provision had been made. The reason is that the amendment contained in Clause 6 (b) is necessitated by the amendment of Section 73 by Section 55 (a) of Act No. 88 of 1963 which substituted a reference to a wine and malt licence for the reference to a restaurant liquor licence in Section 73. If the hon. member were to ask me now at this late stage of the session what all this means, then I should have to tell him at this moment. “I do not know.”

The hon. member put a question to me in connection with Clause 6 (b). He asked why this provision had been made. The reason is that the amendment contained in Clause 6 (b) is necessitated by the amendment of Section 73 by Section 55 (a) of Act No. 88 of 1963 which substituted a reference to a wine and malt licence for the reference to a restaurant liquor licence in Section 73. If the hon. member were to ask me now at this late stage of the session what all this means, then I should have to tell him at this moment “I do not know.”

The hon. member referred to wine farmers’ licences. I have received complaints in this regard but I have never had the opportunity of investigating the matter. On the one hand I am told that there are abuses and on the other hand I am told that there are no abuses in this regard. I shall have the matter investigated during the recess. I have been informed from certain authoritative sources that there is no abuse in this connection at all. If there is abuse it is in conflict with the spirit of the Act and, if this is so, I shall certainly do something in connection with the matter. I shall have the matter investigated and hon. members can discuss it with me again at a later stage.

The suggestion about consolidation is a good suggestion which has been made by the hon. member and I shall convey it to my Department.

The hon. member also spoke about the question of credit given to retailers by wholesalers. The wholesalers asked me to restrict credit. I then put this question to them How many days do you want? When I put this question to them, these gentlemen looked at one another rather anxiously for a while and then said The hon. member also spoke about the question of credit given to retailers by wholesalers. The wholesalers asked me to restrict credit. I then put this question to them How many days do you want? When I put this question to them, these gentlemen looked at one another rather anxiously for a while and then said: 75. That is why we have made provision for 75 days in the Bill. But I understand now from the hon. member that this is not generally accepted by the retailers and because they are also involved in this matter, I can of course not proceed with a provision of this nature if there is strong opposition from them in this connection. We can discuss the matter at the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 2.

I would like to move the following amendment—

The object of this amendment is to ensure that those whom the hon. the Minister shall judge in terms of monopolistic conditions when granting a licence, shall, before they are found to be guilty of creating a monopolistic condition, have the opportunity of stating their case, and secondly, that the monopolistic condition will have to be one detrimental to the public interest. It is possible to have a monopolistic condition which in fact is not detrimental to the public interest. Take the practical issue which may arise. A brewery wishes to change what is to-day purely a little pub which sells liquor and transform that into a decent hotel, to rebuild it, refurnish it, recondition it and to turn it into a decent hotel. Then it would be in the public interest that that change should be made. If the person concerned, who to-day has the lease, should be a person who can run a little pub but is not qualified to run a decent hotel because he has never had that experience, then the Minister in terms of the public interest would not withhold consent to such change. I feel that it is unnecessary to labour the point and I move the amendment.

I have no objection to accepting the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I wish to move an amendment in the same spirit as that to Clause 2, except that the circumstances are slightly different. Here we are dealing with the transfer of a licence from person to person. I move—

As the hon. member has said, the situation is exactly the same and that is the intention, and I think the amendments of the hon. member give expression to the intention we had in this regard, and I accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move the following amendment—

Like the hon. the Minister, Mr. Chairman, if you ask me what that means I have to give him best. But I know what it is intended to mean and the legal advisers apparently understand what it is intended to mean and that is what I intend it to mean.

The first part of the amendment deals with the question of delivery until 5 p.m. instead of 3 p.m. We discussed that at the second reading. That is reasonable. In terms of subsection (c), as it now reads, any canteen, bar or premises restricted to the use of any one particular race in a White area, would be limited to a maximum late hour of 9 p.m. at night. Now the object of this clause quite clearly is to limit only where a later licence might not be in the public interest. Where you have a canteen in a residential area, in an area where it could cause difficulty and unpleasantness if it remained open late at night, it is logic and reasonable that there should be early closing. What this amendment in somewhat complicated legal terminology does, is to say that where hours had already been fixed as at last year by a local licensing board which recognized the local circumstances and applied restrictions where they were necessary and allowed later licences where they did not believe such restrictions were necessary, then those restrictions and hours should now become the maximum hours which may be determined in the future. That appears reasonable, although I am afraid that the hon. Minister is going to find that he will be faced with some hard-luck applications under this clause. It is a matter which is clearly open to possible requests for amendment next year. I think it is going to meet the majority of the cases, but there will be hard-luck cases. It is unfortunate that they will have to wait a year to get settled, but the law is such a complicated business that I cannot see any more satisfactory provision, unless it is left entirely to the local licensing boards, and that the Minister does not wish to do. Therefore I move that those provisions already laid down at the end of last year shall apply in the future, and that the delivery of liquor may take place until 5 p.m. on half-days.

I believe there is very much substance in the argument of the hon. member for Durban (Point) and therefore I have no hesitation in accepting the amendments.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

I move as an amendment—

To omit all the words after “sex” in line 56 up to and including “sex” in line 60.

The lines referred to in the amendment are the lines which provide for a restriction on credit. I argued the matter at the second reading and I do not feel that it is necessary to add to it, unless the Minister wishes me to do so.

I accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

Here I have the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “on” in line 7, to the end of the clause and to substitute “the fifteenth day of July, 1964”.

Most of the sections of last year’s Liquor Act come into operation on 15 July, and it is good and proper that the new amendments should also come into operation on the same day.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, apart from some further concessions to taxpayers and the few other changes to which I shall refer, the Bill is substantially the same Bill that was published at my request by the Secretary for Inland Revenue in the Government Gazette of 18 May. Hon. members will, therefore, have had ample opportunity to study the provisions of the Bill.

Furthermore, the object and effect of the various clauses are clearly explained in the memorandum of the Bill. The new method of preparing Bills is of great assistance to members and the need for White Papers on Bills has practically fallen away. I nevertheless decided to follow past practice and have provided hon. members with explanatory memoranda on this Bill and on the Revenue Laws Amendment Bill.

In the circumstances there is very little for me to say by way of introduction or explanation. I intend, therefore, to confine my remarks to a brief survey of the material changes which have been made to the Bill since its publication and to a commentary on some of the representations which have been received in regard to the Bill. The representations have been remarkably few in number and have been mostly concerned with the proposed amendment to Section 38 of the principal Act which prescribes the rules which are applied in determining whether companies are to be recognized as public or private for income-tax purposes.

Judging by the representations received, it would appear that the Bill meets with general approval. That is not surprising in view of the fact that of the 32 clauses contained in the Bill no fewer than 17 introduce concessions or benefits to taxpayers in some form or another. Some of these concessions were foreshadowed in my Budget Speech, others were added and included in the Bill before it was published and further concessions have since been added.

These further concessions account for most of the major changes which the Bill has undergone since its publication in the Gazette. Some of the other changes were made as the result of suggestions received from members of this House and other interested persons.

I shall now briefly sketch the nature of the material changes and indicate where they are to be found in the Bill.

Firstly, there are the further concessions to which I have referred and such of the other changes as did not emanate from representations received.

Clause 10 adds three new sections to the Income Tax Act which will benefit manufacturers in Bantu and border areas by granting them special allowances in respect, firstly, of the cost of electric power, water and transport, secondly, of increased administrative and manufacturing costs and thirdly, of expenditure incurred in acquiring or erecting housing for their employees.

Clause 11 substitutes a new section for Section 12 of the principal Act. The object of the substitution is to amend the section in order to increase the maximum rates of the initial and investment allowances deductible in respect of machinery, plant, implements, utensils or other articles brought into use in Bantu or border areas by manufacturers and hotel keepers on or after 1 May 1964.

Clause 12 amends Section 13 of the principal Act to increase the maximum rate of the investment allowance in respect of buildings erected or improvements effected to buildings by manufacturers or hotel keepers in Bantu or border areas. The increased rate will apply only where the date of commencement of the erection of the building or of the improvements, as the case may be, falls on or after 1 May 1964.

The deductions referred to in Clauses 10, 11 and 12 must be authorized by the Minister of Finance, who will have regard to the circumstances of the case and to the recommendations of the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development or the Secretary for Commerce and Industries, as the case may be.

The last of the major changes to which I wish to refer before dealing with those which were introduced as the result of representations received, is to be found in Clause 21. This clause amends Section 83 of the principal Act in order to remove the doubt that has recently arisen as to the validity of the practice which is occasionally followed of allowing an Income Tax Special Court constituted for one area to hear and determine an appeal which arose in another area. This course is normally adopted at the request of the appellant or to suit his or his counsel’s convenience.

I come now to the changes which have been made at the suggestion of members of this House and other interested persons.

Firstly, there is the amendment to Section 20 of the principal Act—appearing in Clause 11 of the published Bill and Clause 13 of the Bill now before the House. As originally worded, the sub-section to be inserted in the Act would have permitted the Secretary for Inland Revenue, in the circumstances described in the sub-section, to pass on the benefit of an assessed loss from a parent company to its subsidiary only if the South African business taken over by the subsidiary constituted a branch of the parent company’s activities carried on in and outside the Republic. As now worded, the sub-section will apply also in cases where the South African business constituted the parent company’s only undertaking.

All the other changes effected in response to representations received relate to the proposed amendment to Section 38 of the principal Act as introduced by Clause 16 of the present Bill. This clause appeared as Clause 14 in the published Bill.

One of the effects of the proposed amendment will be that a director of a company, his spouse or any other relative of the director or his spouse will not be regarded as a member of the general public in relation to that company. A common complaint, occurring in all the comments received, was that the expression “relative” was too vague and could prove embarrassing. That complaint has now been met by the definition of “relative” which is being inserted in Section 1 of the principal Act by Clause 4 (c) of the Bill. The expression “relative” appears elsewhere in the Act and the definition will apply to the expression wherever it is so used.

As originally worded, sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of the proposed sub-section (4) to be added to Section 38 of the principal Act would have excluded from the general public in relation to any company not only any director of that company, but also his relatives. A provision has now been inserted which will have the effect that any relative of a director (other than the director’s spouse or child), who is proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary for Inland Revenue at all relevant times to have exercised his rights as a shareholder independently of the director, will be regarded as a member of the general public.

Hon. members will have noticed that paragraph (b) (i) of the proposed sub-section to which I have just referred has been reworded to provide that the general public in relation to any company shall be deemed to include also any trust or institution which the Secretary for Inland Revenue considers to be of a public character. This is an important change and will remove another common complaint.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the last of the changes in the Bill to which reference need be made. The purely textual alterations, to improve the wording or to remove the possibility of doubt or misunderstanding, do not call for any comment.

In conclusion, I propose to deal briefly with certain of the comments received on the proposed amendment of Section 38 of the Income Tax Act. Some of the comments were helpful and constructive and resulted in those changes to the Bill which I have referred to as changes emanating from representations received. Other comments were neither helpful nor constructive and were inclined to foresee difficulties where none existed or to greatly exaggerate such difficulties as do exist.

I do not for one moment suggest, Mr. Speaker, that difficulties or problems will no longer arise in connection with the classification of companies. Difficulties and problems arise under any system of taxation or under any Income Tax Act. I make bold to say, however, that such difficulties and problems as are likely to arise in the future under Section 38 of the Income Tax Act will not be occasioned by the amendments which are now being introduced. In fact, the amendments are calculated to remove many of the present difficulties and anomalies.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in its decision in the Plascon Holdings case confirmed the official view that the expression “general public” includes only natural persons. The expression does not include funds, trusts and other artificial persons. This was alleged to have caused hardship or embarrassment to companies in the past and that position will now be eased by the new provisions in terms of which pension, provident, benefit and retirement annuity funds and any trusts or institutions, which in the opinion of the Secretary for Inland Revenue are of a public character, will be regarded as forming part of the general public.

Another improvement will be that the interest of the general public in the shares of any company by virtue of a shareholding in any other company—whether public or private —will be taken into account. Hitherto such interest in order to be taken into account was required to be held by virtue of shareholdings in public companies. Coupled with this improvement is the further concession that, in the case of companies whose equity shares are quoted by a stock exchange, the percentage of the equity shares in which the general public is required to be interested, in order that the company may be classified as public, is being reduced from fifty to forty.

By specifying the persons who, in relation to any company, will be excluded from the general public, the proposed sub-section (4) of Section 38 of the Act will confirm the practice which has been followed by the Secretary for Inland Revenue in the past. This means that companies, through their principal shareholders, will henceforth be in a better position to control their own status, as they should know which of their shareholders will, or will not, form part of the general public.

I, therefore, reject the allegation which has been made that the proposed amendment will extend the area of uncertainty in regard to the status of companies and will give rise to difficulties and delays. As I have indicated, the reverse should be the effect.

Criticism has been levelled at the requirement that the interest of the general public in the equity shares of any company must be maintained at the required level throughout the year of assessment. It has been suggested that a specific date in relation to which the shareholding in the company is to be tested, should be substituted.

This proposal is not acceptable as it would open the door to share manipulation. What the critics seem to overlook in alleging that the present requirement will make it impossible for the law to be applied, is that the requirement has appeared in the Income Tax Act since 1961 and has not had the effect of rendering the section unworkable.

It could only happen in the case of companies which are on the borderline between being public or private, that changes in shareholding during the year can materially affect their status and then only if such changes take place in the shares held by its principal shareholders. The number of cases likely to be affected should, therefore, not be many and the remedy would seem to lie in the hands of the controlling shareholders.

It was also suggested that a person should be allowed to be interested in as many as 25 per cent of a company’s equity shares before he will be deemed not to be a member of the general public in relation to that company. That suggestion is not acceptable and the 15 per cent holding which is laid down in the Bill is, in my opinion, fair and reasonable.

In this connection I must point out that a company will not be classified as private merely because a particular person is interested in more than 15 per cent of any class of its equity shares. All that will happen is that the person concerned will not be regarded as a member of the general public and the company would still be capable of being classified as public if the general public is interested in the required percentage of its equity shares.

We support the second reading of the Bill and we would like to place on record our appreciation of getting from the Minister advance notice of the proposed amendment to Section 38. For several years now we have complained that the Income Tax Bill has only come at the last stage of the Session, giving very little opportunity to hon. members to study the Bill and to discuss it with outside interests. As the result of getting the amendment in Section 38 a fair time in advance, it has been possible to discuss the effects of the amendment with outside interests and to consider in what respects that section can be improved. The Minister has, as he rightly said, to a certain extent met the objections we raised to it. We take credit for having educated the Minister and for bringing to his notice the necessity for amending the section.

I am in the right frame of mind to admit your very gentle imputation.

Sir, it is quite obvious how late the Session is when the Minister admits that we have educated him. But the Minister still has some homework to do and we are hoping for an improvement next year. As far as his Department is concerned, it is concerned with closing the net and no Secretary for Inland Revenue is doing his job unless he is continuously trying to close the net to make sure that no minnows get through. But he is not concerned with policy; he is not concerned with using the Income Tax Act as an instrument of social planning, and it is in that respect that the Minister is falling down. We have had several concessions which the Minister has given, some of them as the result of representations we made to him, but we feel that the Minister should give consideration to using the Income Tax Act as a measure of social policy because there are several matters which still require attention and only he can give a direction.

The Minister has talked about inflation when we have talked about reducing taxes from time to time. We feel that the Minister is asking the lower and middle income groups to make sacrifices to prevent inflation. We feel that he is placing too heavy a burden on those groups. The Minister talks about the dangers of inflation, but there are matters which should have the consideration of the Minister because there are provisions in the Act which are of long standing, and yet social conditions have changed and the cost of living has gone up.

I bring to the notice of the Minister the question of family allowances, the abatement of family allowances, and I suggest that we have reached the stage when that should be re-examined and we should have a more generous family allowance, and that there should be more generous provision for children’s allowances, and we will move an amendment in the Committee Stage indicating our ideas in this regard. I suggest also that the dependants’ allowances are unrealistic at present. Goodness knows how long it is since that was altered. When we come to the question of medical expenses, a few years ago the Minister introduced an allowance for medical expenses, including doctors’ fees and hospital expenses, but no provision was made for medicines. I am particularly concerned about the old people. There are many tragic cases of old people who are kept going by modern drugs. Many of the most recent discoveries for the treatment of blood pressure and heart conditions have to be taken by elderly people in many cases for the rest of their lives, and these medicines are expensive and constitute a burden on them. I suggest the time has come for the Minister to give careful consideration to the question of allowances for medical expenses, including an increased allowance for doctors’ and hospital fees, such allowance to include medicines.

Then there is another class of person who requires consideration. While I am not asking the Minister to enter into a controversy over divorce, we have cases of divorcees or separated women who have families to bring up, and in the case of women who are separated they may be providing for the children and they do not know the husband’s address. They cannot trace the husband and the Secretary for Inland Revenue, maintaining his oath of secrecy, will not disclose where he is. Yet the husband is claiming the full children’s allowance to which he is entitled under the law, but the mother who provides for the children gets no allowance. She is in effect the breadwinner of the children and the husband gets the allowance for the children, and she gets none. I think the question of allowances in cases of this kind indicates how the Income Tax Act may be used as an instrument for social planning. I hope the Minister will give this serious consideration, because while he has made various concessions in the Bill, which are welcomed by the business man and the industrialist and the financier, they are not concessions which touch the pockets of the ordinary man in the street. For that reason I am suggesting that the Minister do more homework in the recess and I hope that next year we will have the Act made available to us in good time so that we can study it and help to educate the Minister again.

I come to Clauses 10 and 11 of the Act. The Minister just referred to them in passing, but both these clauses deal with the allowances made to border industries, and here border industries are those industries as defined by the Minister of Bantu Administration. We want to criticize the Government again for failing to define the border areas and the Bantu areas. It depends entirely on a certificate or a recommendation by the Minister of Bantu Administration. You can have the case of one industry which is eight miles from the border and which does not count as a border industry, but you can have another industry 40 miles from the border which is counted as a border industry, all depending on the certificate or the recommendation of the Minister of Bantu Administration. We see no logic in it. We have of course the classic example of Durban and Pinetown, both of which have a common boundary with Bantu reserves, and both these areas are not border areas and do not qualify for the allowances under Clauses 10 and 11, but yet in the Pinetown magisterial area there is Hammarsdale, which qualifies for the allowance. That criticism is of course something we have voiced to the Minister of Economic Development, because it does not concern the Minister of Finance so much, but it does concern the Minister of Economic Affairs and Bantu Administration. The Minister of Economic Affairs seems to take one attitude, and the Minister of Bantu Administration makes up his mind as he goes along. We feel that there is room for criticism as to the method by which these allowances are granted to border industries.

The Minister has referred to Clause 13, which provides for losses of companies which have been established in South Africa and are in effect branches of overseas companies. This is analogous to the concession made to overseas companies who transfer their property, when no transfer duty is payable. In this case they are allowed to pass on their losses to the new company, and we welcome that.

Clause 15 is a matter which we do not have to discuss. It deals with deep-level gold mining and I presume, although the Minister made no special reference to it, that there has been no objection from the gold mining industry. As far as we understand, this has the approval of the deep-level mining interests concerned.

I come now to Clause 16, which amends Section 38 of the principal Act. Here the Minister says that there is general approval for it. I would not say that; I should say that the interested parties feel that the Minister has gone a long way towards meeting some of the objections, but I would not agree that it gives general approval. In spite of what the Minister says, in a company where there is a frequent movement of shares and a general dealing in the shares throughout the year, it is extraordinarily difficult to keep trace of the relationship of every shareholder. I am quite sure that the Minister would not like to be given the job of looking daily at the list of shareholders and try to trace whether anybody acquiring shares in the company was within the third degree of consanguinity to either himself or his wife. The secretary of a company is required to state at the end of the year whether or not the public was generally interested in the company, and in order to do so he must ascertain the relationship of all the shareholders of the company to every director. The average public company has seven or nine directors, and in some cases one of them may have been married twice. But even in the case of the man who has been married once, you have to trace the possible relationship of all shareholders buying or selling shares during the year to each of the directors or their wives. That is one of the difficulties and it makes for administrative difficulty when the public officer of the company has to say at the end of the year whether or not there is any relationship between the director or his wife and the various shareholders. It is all very well for the Minister to say this will not cause much difficulty, but I should like to give the Minister a couple of weeks’ holiday to work in the transfer office of one of our big public companies, after which I do not think he would come back to Parliament and express the same view.

I think the time has come for us to consider whether it serves any good purpose to continue with the undistributed profits tax. It brings in approximately R500,000 or £500,000—I am not sure which—but it is not a considerable amount. I think there is a case to be made out for the discontinuance of this tax, having regard to the administrative difficulties it causes. I am quite sure that while the Department may administer this sympathetically, every public officer of a company will be very relieved, particularly in those borderline cases, when he finds at the end of the year that his company is described as a public and not as a private company. It is true that the Minister has widened the definition of a public company, and I am glad that, following the Plascon case, institutional buying should be regarded as buying by the general public. The Plascon case decided that it was only individuals who should be regarded as the general public and therefore all our big insurance companies, which play a very important part in supporting industry, were formerly excluded but can now be included as part of the general public. We want to encourage institutional buying of shares in our industrial companies, because I think that is the sort of investment the Minister wants to encourage. For that reason I am glad that he has extended the scope of the definition of “general public”.

I refer now to Clause 17, which deals with financial companies. I do not think I can do better than quote the remarks given to me by a very big industrialist in this country. Clause 17 amends Section 49 (b) (2) of the principal Act. He says this—

Since this was written the percentage has been reduced to 40 per cent, and that is more realistic and it is a concession, but I trust that the Minister will give this matter consideration. Some of these matters can obviously not be remedied this year, but I hope that during the recess the Minister, while he has met the objections of many interested parties, will consider some of these problems of the little man. I indicated those in the earlier portion of my remarks. I hope that the Minister will consider these questions of family allowances, children’s allowances, medical allowances, as well as these more complicated problems of public companies and private companies and the involved taxation problems which help to keep the Minister’s Department busy and keep the Secretary for Inland Revenue at his old task of net-mending and net-making. We hope that, while he is busy with that task, he will see whether he cannot open the net a little wider for the ordinary man who is not receiving the benefits of the boom as much as the Minister pretends.

I have only one suggestion to make to the Minister, and it is not in regard to gold mining taxation. I have indicated on previous occasions that I think a revision of that formula is long overdue, but that is not the point I wish to make. I wish to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived for his staff to consider and advise him upon the principle of apportionment as they have in the British income-tax system. When company tax is charged, shareholders may be credited with the amount paid in companies’ tax. In other words, companies’ tax may be higher, but the small investor has less to pay. He is credited with the amount of the companies’ tax, with the result that the small investor may pay nothing in companies’ tax, because it is all refunded to him. That principle of apportionment is the one accepted in modern countries. My request is briefly to ask the Minister whether it could be reconsidered;—not considered for the first time, because it was considered by the Steyn Commission, which was not able to pursue it further because gold mining taxation had been excluded from their terms of reference. The Viljoen Commission raised the matter again, and it is quite obvious that they all felt that the greatest advance that could be made in our companies’ income-tax system would be the introduction of the principle of apportionment.

I am very pleased that the Opposition supports this measure but I want to come back to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). I do not resent the fact that he asked for increased allowances. His request made me think of a family. Just as a child asks his father to give him something or other—for example, my little son asked whether he need no longer go to school next week—so it is also the function of the Opposition to ask the hon. the Minister for concessions. I told my little son that I could not agree to what he asked and I believe that the hon. the Minister will also say that he cannot grant increased allowances.

The hon. member said that the Bill did not define the boundaries of the Bantu homelands. I want to take this argument a little further. Let us be practical and realistic about this matter. After all, we cannot provide in the Bill that an industry which is more than 14 miles from a border area, to take the figure mentioned by the hon. member, will fall beyond that border area and that it will therefore not be a border industry. After all, our industries are bound by certain factors; there is the question of transport, water, power and railway facilities. If one has a large open and unpopulated area in which the railway facilities, power and water are 50 miles away from the border of the Bantu homeland, surely one cannot say that an industry established there cannot be regarded as a border industry because it is not within 14 miles of the boundary of the Bantu homeland. That would be very unpractical and unrealistic. In the area represented by the hon. member therefore, one cannot make the distance from the boundaries of the Bantu area more than, let us say, ten miles because if one makes the distance further, one may perhaps include a thickly populated White area. In that case transport, water, power and so forth will be near the boundary. I just want to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he must be practical and realistic in making this sort of request that the boundaries must be defined. I am sure that he will agree with me that one will not spend millions of rand in such cases on diverting a railway line or in order to supply an area with water when it will not be necessary to incur this expenditure if one can erect one’s industry just a short distance further from the boundary. This is the only point I want to bring to the attention of the House.

The hon. member raised certain objections in regard to Clause 38. We know that there are certain objections in this regard. This clause has actually been included in order to restrict the activities of family companies. It is not aimed so much at the other companies. There will be border-line cases and there will be cases in which the Secretary will find it difficult to decide, but these will be the exceptions. I personally wonder whether we should not confine it to the second degree of consanguinity only. One may then find that one has left many openings; one may find then not that the payment of tax will be evaded but that people will get away with the non-payment of lawful taxes, which is something we do not want. We want the law to be practical and realistic in this regard; we do not want anyone to be adversely affected thereby. The hon. member raised a few points here which merit attention but I think that his fears are exaggerated. I myself have gone into the matter and I have also had various discussions with different bodies, including the Department. I am satisfied that the clause as it has been inserted here is framed in the best way possible.

I do not want to discuss the question of Bantu areas, but it seems to me that the hon. the Minister of Finance has saved the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development quite a lot of trouble because all we have here is “an area adjoining a Bantu area” which can be decided by the hon. the Minister himself in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs or the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Sir, most of the amendments contained in this Bill have already been dealt with but there are one or two to which I would like to refer because they are welcome amendments. The first is Clause 4 which changes the definition of a child so that a child adopted overseas can now be regarded as a child for the purposes of income-tax. I think that is a very welcome provision particularly with the spate of immigrants we are having and hope to have in the future.

Clauses 6. 9 and 12, which widen the provisions for the recoupment for damaged plant and machinery, are also necessary. Previously, as the hon. the Minister knows, such recoupment was limited to damage by water and fire. That is now being expanded.

The last clause to which I want to refer is Clause 18, which now brings clarity in regard to donations between spouses so that any donation for the benefit of a spouse is now clearly removed from any liability for donations tax. Clauses 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, which deal with pensions and annuities and provident funds establish a new principle in that, when there is a transfer of an insurance policy, instead of waiting for maturity and then taxing the value of the policy in the hands of the recipient, the surrender value is now taxed. Reference is made in these clauses to the transfer of a lump-sum benefit. What I would like to know from the hon. the Minister is what the position is under circumstances where the value of the insurance policy is related to premiums paid which have been deductible and premiums paid which have not been deductible, in other words when a contributor to a pension fund contributes an amount which is not entirely deductible because he may be making contributions to other pension funds or because the pension he wants is greater than the deduction he is allowed, so his contribution to a pension fund or a provident fund, as the case may be, is greater than he is allowed to deduct. When you get a lump-sum policy transferred, a portion of that policy will be in relation to payments which are deductible and payments which are not deductible, and as far as I can see there is no provision in the Act that only that proportion of the policy which is regarded as a lump-sum should be in respect of the deductible payments. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will enlighten us on that point.

Sir, now we get back to this rather vexed Clause 16 which amends Section 38 of the Act. I do not think anybody is happy about this proviso; I do not think the hon. the Minister is very happy about it. It is a very difficult and a very complex problem; we all appreciate that. But there are certain inherent problems in the clause we have before us. There are two cases that I would like to put to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, what would be the position of a private company which is formed or turned into a public company during the fiscal year? As I understand the clause, that company, although turned into a public company, in terms of the Income Tax Act as it will now read, will be regarded as a private company for that year, and it seems to me that this may lead to a certain amount of unfairness. The other situation is where you find that a company is a public company in terms of this definition and then the controllers or the directors of that company find it necessary for some reason to “buy in” shares. Let us assume that there is somebody selling shares against the company. We had a case not very long ago where an enormous number of shares suddenly came on the market and the controlling company had to buy up those shares to maintain the price of the share. Sir, it may be something purely temporary; it may be something which the controllers of the company do not want to do, but they do not want their shares to be thrown onto one market; they do not want their prices to be deflated, and yet if they have to buy up a quantity of shares that would make their company no longer a public company for one, two or three days, then it would cease to be a public company for the year. A suggestion which I should like to make for the Minister’s consideration is this, that while this proviso remains, in other words that a company is only a public company “if the general public was throughout the year of assessment …”, etc., etc., a discretion should in addition be given to the secretary to declare a company under other circumstances to be a public company; in other words, if you meet this proviso there is no discussion, but if special circumstances do arise then the secretary should have the right to determine that the company was a public company.

The other aspect is this chain of events as between public companies and private companies to determine who really owns the shares. The position is so complicated that I am going to read what The Taxpayer says, because if I tried to put it in my own words I would probably get so confused myself that I would not know what was going on. This is what The Taxpayer says about it—

Sir, this will indicate how easy it is to make these calculations—

Do you understand it now?

The answer is a lemon.

Yes, I understand it. But this is the problem that arises from it—

The Secretary for Finance has to be satisfied as to the portion of the shares each shareholder in the private company would be entitled to receive if every company in the chain were wound up or liquidated and the assets of each were to be distributed among its shareholders. His decision in this regard is not made subject to appeal.

The secretary’s decision is final—

Perhaps the hon. the Minister might therefore consider granting a right of appeal in this rather complicated system to define what is a public company.

An appeal to whom?

To the courts or to the Special Income Tax court—the normal method of appeal in income-tax cases. If the secretary has said, “I do not regard this as a public company”, then you should have the right to appeal, which you are not given now under this peculiar situation with interlocking companies.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has raised a number of what he calls social problems and I do not want to deal with those particularly except just to say that we naturally support what he said, but there is one aspect of our income-tax system which I would like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of the married working woman. It seems to me that we are not giving the married working woman much consideration. I know that there are lots of people who take the view that married women should not work, that they should be in the home, that they should bring up their children and so on and so forth, but that is not a factor that we have to deal with. We have to deal with the facts of life, and the fact of the matter in this country to-day is that the economic unit is the husband and the wife; that in most families both the husband and the wife are working and that in most cases they are forced to work. There are many women who work for pin-money; I do not think anybody will deny that, but we are not dealing now with the exceptional cases. When a married woman works to-day her income is marked with that of her husband and it is taxed as a single income. I think the time has come when we should regard the married working women with a little more sympathy. I do not want to discuss this matter too fully at this stage; we can discuss it in the Committee Stage, but I do feel that some provision should be written into the Act—and an amendment will be moved to that effect—that a proportion of a married working woman’s salary should be exempt from income-tax, just as is done in England. Some allowance should be given to her in respect of income-tax. As I have said, perhaps it would be better to deal with this matter more fully in the Committee Stage, but we are dealing with the principle of the Bill and that is why I raised the matter at this stage. I cannot expect the Minister to give consideration to it at this stage of the Session, but perhaps he will add another item to his homework…. [Interjection.] If he does, I will be more than grateful. I think an important principle is involved here. We need people to work to-day; we are short of labour and the pattern of our life to-day is that many married women do work, so let us treat them fairly.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) made what I think is an unnecessary criticism of the Secretary for Inland Revenue. He rather suggested that he was merely a collector of income-tax and that he had no regard to policy. That is not correct. He does have regard to policy. As far as the points which have been raised here are concerned, he does have regard to policy; he has to see that the machinery of the Income Tax Act works smoothly. Unless you follow policy trends in that regard, then you simply do not know where you are going to end.

The hon. member also put forward the plea that rebates or abatements should be given to certain groups, and he referred to the middle income group. We are attempting in this present Budget to straighten out the bulge. We have not done it completely yet. That, unfortunately has also been criticized. It is said that these people earning a salary of over R2,400— the old super-tax limit—are now being given a benefit which, as rich people, should not be given to them. Well, that is not quite right. What we are trying to do is to restore a measure of equity all along the line. This is the second instalment in an attempt to straighten out the line and to solve the “battle of the bulge” of the Secretary for Inland Revenue.

The other matters which the hon. member touched upon really refer to matters of policy. He raised the question of rebates in respect of children and the question of medical expenses. The custom has arisen of using income-tax as a means of introducing social reforms. I think the correct procedure would be to use the proceeds of income-tax to bring about those reforms by way of direct or other subsidies. I think this is a very unfair proposition to the poorer people. If, for instance, I increase the rebate in respect of medical expenses, it can only affect people who are paying income-tax; it does not affect those who do not pay income-tax. If I increase the rebates for children, I may be helping those who pay income-tax, but then I am not alleviating the position of those who are too poor to pay income-tax. I think this is not only against the whole principle of income-tax, but I think it is also unjust. I have therefore devised certain ways and means of using income-tax for social reform purposes. I think it is much more satisfactory that those social reforms should be done by means of money directly appropriated for that purpose, and not by way of an indirect subsidy such as this.

As far as the question of children’s rebates is concerned, that is a matter which has a very old history. The rebate has been increased considerably over the past 15 years. Hon. members will remember that not only has the amount been increased from R15 to R34 as it is at the present time, but the scope of the rebate has also been increased. Whereas formerly the rebate was allowed in respect of children under a certain age, it is now also allowed in respect of children over that age under certain circumstances. We have also made provision for rebates in respect of children additional to two children. Those are all methods by which we have extended the scope of the rebate but, as I say, I do not think that it is a sound principle.

As far as medical expenses are concerned, I have been asked to include the cost of medicines as well. The trouble is that this concession is open to very serious abuse. The medical benefit societies which do pay the cost of medicines have discovered that this lends itself to abuses and they have consequently had to withdraw the benefits which they formerly gave their members in respect of medicines because members shamelessly cheated their own societies by including all other items of expenditure in the chemist bill, items such as cosmetics and cameras. Hon. members will realize that administratively it is impossible to go and scrutinize every account. We would only get the receipt from the chemist and if we wanted to have a full check we would have to scrutinize every invoice. That would be an impossible task. That is our difficulty as far as the cost of medicines is concerned. As I say, we have departed from the principle but I would not like to go beyond what we have already done.

The hon. member also referred to the allowances under Clauses 10, 11 and 12. In these clauses we are merely giving effect to the recommendations of the Economic Advisory Council. There must be a certain amount of flexibility; you cannot apply a rule of thumb method in laying down the distances. The whole matter has been considered closely by the Department of Commerce and Industries, and when it comes to the Treasury we apply a very severe test. I can assure hon. members that not every proposition that is put up, even if it is supported by the Department of Commerce and Industries, is approved by the Treasury. We have to keep our eye even on our colleagues! Hon. members can rest assured, therefore, that we are doing as much as we can to see that there is no abuse of this type of thing.

The hon. member also referred to Clause 38. He has certain misgivings, even after we have effected what I regard as a very considerable improvement. This is a thorny problem and it has always been a difficult problem. However, I do not think this is the last word on the subject. At any rate I am not prepared to live under that illusion; I think there is still room for improvement. I am certainly an ambitious man and I believe that a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for? We will always see whether further improvements can be brought about.

The undistributed profits tax brought in R600,000 last year but I want to point out to hon. members that this tax was not imposed as a revenue-raising measure; that was not our purpose. Our purpose was to devise some means of preventing tax avoidance which was practiced on a very large scale by limiting the distribution of dividends. This meant, of course, that no income-tax was collected from the people who would otherwise have received those dividends. I think in a measure the success of this tax is borne out by the small amount which is collected; the smaller the amount the greater the success we have had in achieving our object of preventing tax avoidance. It is not our desire to collect a big amount, and the amount that we do collect is really a criterion of the measure of our success.

The hon. member also referred to private financial companies which are not allowed to plough back the income which is derived entirely from dividends from other companies. That is true, but here again the reason for this is the abuse that would have been resorted to by the formation of a chain of companies. Hon. members have no conception of the ingenuity of the human mind in trying to avoid paying the fiscus what is due to it. Hon. members must remember that the more tax avoidance of this type there is, the more we honest taxpayers have to pay in income-tax. The same has to be collected in the end; we have to appropriate the amount we need for the administration of the country and hon. members should really be astute with me in trying to see that these loopholes are closed.

Then the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) dealt with the principle of apportionment. This is not a new problem. The hon. member wants us to reconsider this whole matter. As he himself said, it has been considered from time to time and rejected. I cannot say off-hand what the reasons were but I take it that the mere fact that it has been rejected with almost monotonous regularity …

Not by the Commissions.

No, but it has been rejected by the fiscus, and there must be a very good reason for it. Successive Ministers of Finance have rejected it and I am sure they were not all unreasonable. However, in the ordinary course of events we are constantly investigating these matters which are brought to our notice, and I want to assure the hon. member for Pinetown and the other gentleman that although this particular Bill only provides for concessions and no increases in duties, I will consider all the suggestions which have been made here with regard to further concessions in the future. I only regret that the hon. member did not also help me in regard to possible ways of increasing the revenue. I would welcome that as much as these suggestions. I am very open to sensible suggestions.

Is the Minister short of revenue?

That depends. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) has given his blessing to this Bill. He certainly did not cavil at all the concessions which are given here. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) asked questions in regard to the lump sum benefit. I shall go into that. The hon. member has had misgivings about the question of “throughout the year”. But my misgivings are graver than his because I realize that if you have a specific date it would encourage manipulation of your share register. I do not know whether there is another solution. If there is, having due regard to this problem, I shall consider it. He has also referred to the difficulty of the secretary to determine from time to time who are relatives of directors amongst the shareholders. He has asked me to grant the secretary a discretionary power to define a company as public. That I cannot do; I cannot give that power to the secretary. The hon. member has cited an exceptional case, a case which would have to be dealt with on its merits in the ordinary course of events. I cannot give the answer now but it is an exceptional case and I would advise the person concerned in that particular case to discuss the matter with the Department and it will be treated on its merits.

The secretary of a company may, of course, have difficulty in determining the relationship between directors and shareholders. I think the directors ought to assist him in this. They ought to have no difficulty in knowing who their own relations are. They should give the secretary the benefit of that knowledge in which case his task will be ever so much easier. The hon. member has also referred to the position of the husband and wife. I admit it is an unfortunate position to-day that both husband and wife have to earn their bread. It is a matter which, in the very nature of things, must be considered from time to time in the light of the social changes which take place. I intend going into that whole matter whenever I have an opportunity during the recess. He also asked what the position was if a company became public in the course of a year. If he asks me that question after I have had due consultation, I shall be able to reply to him. I cannot at this stage.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It was my intention to deal comprehensively with the provisions of the Bill when introducing the second reading. I say “comprehensively” because I think that is more or less the appropriate term for this particular Bill. I have come to realize, however, that this is an instrument drafted by experts for use by experts and the question of the mechanics is really a matter for the experts to settle amongst themselves. The point to stress is that this Bill deals with the mechanics of Customs and Excise administration and not with the level of the duties or other matters of economic policy. The departures from existing procedure have all been discussed with the parties concerned and as far as I am aware differences have been explained and adjusted.

Mr. Speaker, it may not be clear to importers and manufacturers at this early stage but I am sure they will come to realize in time that the Brussels Nomenclature represents a new approach to Customs tariff administration. The Nomenclature was drafted by an international body of experts and my understanding of it is that it is a precise and logical instrument designed to cope with modem circumstances and technological advances. It is constructed in such a manner that its arrangement of commodities can cope with new developments and it is much more flexible than the existing tariff so that protective measures will not be restricted as in the past. This new tariff has been in force in many countries for a number of years and there is no reason to have any doubts about its benefits for South Africa. I think I have informed the House on a previous occasion that we are now a member of this particular international board at Brussels. We will be keeping abreast of events from time to time.

The introduction of the new Customs tariff without modernization of the other Schedules would have been a waste of time. The tempo of industrial development does not allow of regular revision of provisions and an opportunity such as the present one must be used to bring the machinery up to date.

It should also not be overlooked that an opportunity to overhaul the tax machinery to cope with future eventualities does not occur every few years. The size of this Bill is sufficient evidence of the field it covers. An objective review of the present position and future developments has been made and it is expected that the machinery provided for in this Bill will be adequate for many years with only minor adjustments from time to time,

The provisions of the concessionary Schedules have been re-arranged and the Excise duties and anti-dumping duties have been incorporated in the one Bill and re-drafted in such a manner that they form one comprehensive unit with a single set of interpretative rules and no divergence of meaning in any expression or term.

Sir, I am satisfied that the Department has done its best to make things easier for everybody concerned even if it is not apparent immediately and I would ask the House to give the Bill its blessing and to wish the Department and the members of the public who earn their daily bread thereby a good landing.

Mr. Speaker, we support the second reading of this Bill. As the hon. the Minister has said it is largely a Bill for experts and a Bill which has been available to the public for some considerable time. Those interested, such as the Chambers of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries and clearing agents’ organizations, have had the opportunity of studying the Bill and discussing it with the Minister’s Department. We wish to take this opportunity of congratulating the senior officials of the Minister’s Department, one individual in particular, on the very fine effort in bringing this task to a successful conclusion. I think this Bill will remain on the Statute Book for some considerable time. I do not think the Minister will pilot the next Customs and Excise Bill through this House and I hope that none of us will have the task of again going through the clauses of a Bill similar to this one. It has been a tremendous job studying this Bill over the past six months. Although I have given the matter some study I would not like to be cross-examined on it.

Have you read it?

Yes, I have. I hope the hon. member will refer to Clause 75 because we are going to move an amendment to it. It refers to certain losses which the Department may suffer. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with us when we argue in the Committee Stage that this is not a matter which should fall within the discretion of the Department but that these losses shall be allowed. A loss of 0.25 per cent is to be allowed in the case of motor spirit, 1.5 per cent in the case of alcohol and .5 per cent in the case of wine. Before we come to the Committee Stage, I should like the Minister to give consideration to a unique class of product which is made in Natal, a motor spirit. It is manufactured partly from cane spirit and partly from petrol. It is a mixture of petrol and alcohol. It has been sold in Natal for many years as Union Motor Spirit. This seems to be a case where the product is neither alcohol nor petrol. In the case of petrol the allowance is 0.25. It may be possible that this particular product will not be covered by either sub-section 18 (a) or 18 (b). It is possible that when they blend the alcohol and the motor spirit and their losses are taken into account (no duty is paid until after the blending has taken place) the provisions of the clause will not apply. I think Natal is the only place in the Republic where this product is marketed. It is quite likely that in the case of this particular product the losses in the form of evaporation, both as to the alcohol and as to the petrol, will be so high,

and no excise duty is paid before the mixing process is completed …

If you call it motor spirit instead of petrol will that meet the case?

I think this is a matter which requires investigation. It is possible that this company may not pay any duty until after the mixing process is complete in which case the provisions of this clause will not apply. But I think I should get this matter on record so that the matter can be investigated. I may say that the parties concerned have made no representations to me but I am familiar with their process. It occurred to me when reading this Bill that this might be a case that would warrant investigation.

The rest of the Bill is a consolidating measure. The old Customs Act and the old Excise Act now fall away. This Bill embodies the two and I am sure the people who are using the Schedules to this Bill will find it much easier in future to refer to different items than in the past. The way the Schedules have been arranged and the various rebates makes it very easy for persons who wish to clear goods to refer to the scheduled items for duty purposes and to the corresponding item on the Schedule for which rebate is to be claimed. Once clearing agents have become accustomed to the new forms they will find it much easier to clear goods. We support the second reading of this Bill.

I wish to refer to two particular clauses in this Bill. The first is Clause 4, subsection (6) (a) which says—

It then goes on to deal with the question of his searching premises and on not being admitted, being entitled to break his way in. The point I wish to stress is that this subsection stated “after having declared his official capacity”. When we look at sub-section (4) (a) we find that it says—

Then the various powers are detailed—he may search, he may examine, etc. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it is always desirable for an officer to declare his official capacity before he sets about his official duties. In most cases, Sir, there is a natural diffidence on the part of members of the public who are to be questioned or examined by any Government official to question that official’s authority or to ask for it. While I am prepared to admit that it may not be desirable to entrench such a stipulation in the Act as such, I would like to suggest to the Minister to lay down by regulation, perhaps, that wherever possible an officer should declare his official capacity before he sets about the purpose of his visit.

I then want to deal with the clause referred to by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell), namely, Clause 75. I want to refer to sub-section (15) which reads—

I would like to ask the Minister what his reaction is to the recommendation which appears in the report of the Snyman Commission in respect of the high cost of medicine. The report says this—

In another section of the report it says—

Then it goes on to deal with what is called non-exempted ethical preparations, the “non-exempted” referring to customs duty. An “ethical preparation” is a medicine which is normally only supplied on the instructions of a doctor; it is not usually available to the public without a prescription. A 20 per cent duty is charged on these ethical medicines. The Minister has indicated in his speech that it is not his intention to go into great detail as for as this Bill is concerned, so I shall confine myself to the minimum of detail. I do feel, however, that I should quote an example to indicate to the Minister the difficulty I have in accepting that this customs duty is necessary in the case of medicines.

The Snyman Commission report gives the details as to how prices are arrived at. If we take a medicine which sells at R3.12, a medicine on which a 20 per cent customs duty has been levied on its basic import price, and subject it to the same margin of profit which the Snyman Commission approves of in its report, but with no customs duty, we find that that medicine would reach the public at a price of R2.60. In other words, the consumer is being asked to pay an extra 52c on a bottle of medicine, medicine which a doctor prescribes because he believes it to be necessary. That means that it is costing the consumer 20 per cent more because of the 20 per cent customs duty which is levied on the medicine when it is imported into South Africa. The Snyman Report refers to this and it says—

From the example I have given, it is clear that it is a concealed factor, a factor which is adding to the cost of medicines to the public themselves.

In 1961 pills and tablets were imported into this country, not for direct sale to the public, to the value of R664,000. I may add that a proportion of these could be regarded as non-exempted ethical preparations to which I have already referred. So one can imagine what the public ultimately had to pay as a result of the customs duty which was levied on those pills and tablets at the point of entry into the country.

It is not only this question which I believe requires some consideration and investigation, but there is the question of raw materials. That is a matter of some importance, because most of the raw materials, in so far as medicines and drugs are concerned, come into this country and are subject to 15 per cent duty on landed cost. It is impossible for many of these raw materials to be grown or produced in this country. The botanical specimens obviously, due to climatic and other factors, cannot be grown in South Africa. In respect of others, it would not be feasible at this stage of our development for us to produce them. The Snyman Commission is quite emphatic on this point and it says—

Sir, I appreciate that in the schedules which exist and which are detailed in this Bill, various exemptions are granted. Exemptions are granted in the case of tuberculostatics, malaria drugs and various types of anti-biotics. But when one considers that the overall importation of medicinal and pharmaceutical products amounted to R 12,700,000 odd in 1962 and the total duty levied amounted to R 1,277,000, one appreciates that this is almost a 10 per cent levy on the total importation.

A strange position exists in so far as medicines and drugs imported for the manufacture of pesticides and insecticides are concerned because it is provided in the schedules that these can be imported either on full rebate or duty free. That also applies to raw materials imported for the manufacture of veterinary medicines. There is a further discrimination which concerns humans because some individuals, namely those who enjoy the benefits of the S.A. Railways and Harbours Sick Fund —they number 370,000 odd with their families— also enjoy the facilities which the Railways are given under Schedule IV, I think, facilities which entitle the Railway Administration to import goods duty free. Not only do they have this facility, but they are in the fortunate position of receiving a grant from the Railway Administration of R 1,600,000 odd. But the members of the public as a whole are required to pay this duty indirectly. I believe that, as far as medicines are concerned, it is time this position is reviewed.

I realize it is not possible at this stage to effect any change in this legislation, but it might be desirable, through the Board of Trade, or through the experts the Minister has in his Department, to go into this question and to find a modus operandi whereby vital drugs which we have to import can be imported at the most favourable rates. I want to stress most definitely that no financial benefit will accrue to the pharmaceutical industry through the removal of duty. The people who will benefit will be John Citizen or Jan Burger. I think the State would then be extending to the citizens of South Africa the concessions which already exist for the animal and insect life in the country. We, on this side of the House, feel that during this Session the Minister has not been as kind as he could or should have been to the pensioner and the lower-income group. We do hope therefore that he will give sympathetic consideration to the problems of the sick.

I want to endorse the tribute which has been paid in connection with this monumental work. It took a number of years to compile it. I remember that from the first time I came here as Minister of Finance I was asked when the Brussels Nomenclature would be produced. I went into the matter and ultimately satisfied myself that this was not only a job of consolidating a number of laws, but that they would have to be written in an entirely different form. Moreover, I realized that it would be a task for experts, a task which would take many years to complete. I know there were occasions when members of this House were impatient, and at times I also was impatient. But now we have got it.

In so far as those people, who have to use this instrument which has now been fashioned for them, are concerned, I am sure it will take them some time to become used to it. They will no doubt have initial difficulties and so shall we, but I hope that we shall be able to overcome these difficulties with the necessary degree of understanding and live to find that this is a very useful instrument which we have fashioned, a new tool for those who have to make use of this machinery.

The hon. member for Pinetown has asked me a question in connection with motor spirits in Natal. I am informed that all manufacturing losses are allowed in full. The Natal spirits will enjoy the allowances if mixed and distributed as petrol. However, I will go into the matter if this is not the position.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) has raised the question of medicine. In this connection he referred me to the Dr. Snyman Commission. I want to explain to the hon. member at the very outset that the Department of Customs and Excise is responsible only for the administration of customs and excise duties, and not for fixing the level of these duties. This Bill represents merely a conversion of existing duty provisions into a new form. The level of these duties, however, was not in question except where it was impossible to avoid adjustments for the purposes of conversion. Application for adjustment of duties is a matter for investigation and recommendation by the Board of Trade and Industries, whereafter the revenue implications are considered by the Treasury. It seems to me that a thorough investigation will be necessary before the customs duty on medicinal preparations and raw materials can be withdrawn. It seems to be clear—and this is something which the Snyman Commission probably was not aware of—that many of the materials concerned can be used for purposes other than the manufacture of medicine and, if the duty on such chemicals is withdrawn, they will escape duty if used for other purposes. On the other hand, rebate provisions could be granted to manufacturers only and not to dispensing chemists. I mention these two points to show that it is not a very simple problem. On the contrary. It is a very involved problem as the hon. member will appreciate. Moreover, it is outside the scope of the present Bill, a Bill which is merely a conversion of the present tariff. I understand, however, that the recommendations of the Snyman Commission are under consideration by the Department of my colleague, the Minister of Health. I cannot say what progress is being made, but I can say that the Cabinet has not had time yet to consider that report in full. The hon. member will also appreciate that the question of excise duty on spirits used in the manufacture of medicinal preparations will require to be considered in relation to the whole question of duties on medicines in due course. The two are really intertwined. It is not merely a simple problem of bringing down the cost of medicine. There are other angles to this problem which shall have to be investigated very thoroughly by the Board of Trade and the other authorities concerned.

As far as veterinary medicines are concerned, a full rebate of excise duty on spirits for use in the manufacture of veterinary medicaments is granted, whereas spirits used in the manufacture of medicines for human consumption are rebated in full less 75c per proof gallon, of 131c per gallon of absolute alcohol. This is as a result of an application by the manufacturers of veterinary medicaments, an application which was after investigation granted. There is no record of a similar application in respect of spirits used for the manufacture of human medicines, but I take it that if an application of that nature is brought to the attention of the Board of Trade and Industries, an appropriate recommendation will be made. The hon. member for Berea at the beginning of his speech also referred to the question of the identification of customs and excise inspectors when calling upon merchants. This is a matter which will be considered and dealt with in the regulations. Customs and excise inspectors always have to carry identification cards and the regulations will require them to produce such cards immediately on arrival at a manufacturer’s office.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clauses 20, 40, 66 and 75,

In sub-section (2) of Clause 20. the following words appear—

I should like to know what the intention is of the words “transported to”. Is it from the time goods are loaded into a ship abroad or does it mean the point of unloading at a South African port? Could the Minister please clarify the intention here When does the point of transport commence?

Just let me get your question clear. You want to know when the removal, the transport, from one warehouse to another, commences?

Yes, that is correct. When it ends is not of importance.

I think the point of transport commences when the goods are taken out of the warehouse.

It says “… transported to … a warehouse”. The point on which I should like to have clarity is whether the transport to a warehouse starts at the beginning of a voyage, let us say when the goods are shipped from England, or does it commence at the point of arrival in Cape Town when the goods are transported from the ship to the warehouse? I ask this because there might be a diminution between loading in England and arrival in South Africa.

While the Minister is looking into the matter I shall deal with Clause 40. Subsection (2) deals with entries which are not valid. If a non-valid entry is made, does it mean that when the correct entry is made the goods will attract duty from the date of the correct entry or still from the date of the invalid entry? Because you can have an entry made by means of wrong description or something of that nature thereby invalidating the entry. Another entry then has to be made to validate the importation of these particular goods. In the meantime there might have been a change of duty. The question now is which entry will attract duty?

The first entry.

Then there is Clause 66. Subsection (1) commences with the following lines—

It is a question of the definition of “the time of purchase”. This phrase is capable of many interpretations; it can be the time of placing an order, the time of confirmation of the order, it can be the time of confirmation by a shipper of an order, etc. There is a new principle embodied in this clause. I should like the Minister to tell is what is meant by “the time of purchase”.

As a mere question of pleasurable pastime, particularly for the questioner, it is a very easy process to ask questions on this volume but it is not so easy to answer those questions. There is an old saying that one gentleman can ask more questions than ten other gentlemen can answer! However, I shall try and do my best. As far as Clause 20 (2) (b) is concerned, the information the hon. member wants is that duty starts after arrival of the goods in South Africa. Losses at sea are allowed. In regard to Clause 66, what is meant by “the time of purchase” is “the time of confirmation”.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to sub-section (18) of Clause 75. In that sub-section the following words appear—

i.e. .25 per cent in the case of imported or exciseable petrol or aviation spirits, 1.5 per cent in the case of spirits (ethyl alcohol) manufactured in the Republic and .5 per cent in the case of wine. I submit it never was the intention to say that “the Secretary ’may’ allow”. I think it should be “shall” and therefore I should like to move accordingly—

It is a storage allowance to cover evaporation losses and other losses of that nature. It was introduced into the Bill after it had been published. When the Bill was first published these provisions were not in the Bill. Subsequently the Departments concerned saw the Minister’s officials and discussed the matter. As a result of that this clause was introduced. These allowances were considered by the Minister’s Department and others concerned as reasonable under all circumstances. Therefore the word should be “shall” and not “may”.

There is no doubt that the intention never was to offer any reservation to this allowance. It was intended that it should be applied. But there are some difficulties in connection with the matter, and while I am quite prepared to accept the spirit of the amendment, I was wondering as to the form. It is a well-known legal principle that an official or a Minister, nobody, has the right to waive State income of any kind unless he is empowered to do so. Now in this case it seems to me that what the law adviser had in mind was to make this an enabling clause, enabling the Secretary in these particular circumstances to waive this particular tax to the extent set out. But what we had in mind was clearly that not only should he have the power, but he should also be obligated to exercise that power, and I am not quite sure in my own mind whether the alteration of “may” to “shall” would affect that purpose, the dual purpose of empowering him and at the same time authorizing him. What I am suggesting is that this Bill in any case will not be promulgated before January of next year at the earliest. As soon as the new Parliament commences I will see that the appropriate amendment is made to give expression to the true intention of the Department and of the hon. member, and that in the period after promulgation and before an amendment is passed, it will be my directive to the Secretary to exercise the power which he clearly has here in all cases in terms of this clause. That will probably remove some technical difficulties which we have, and I would be very glad if the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) who has kindly drawn my attention to what is clearly not the true intention of the Department, would meet me in this way so that this Bill can go through without amendments, and I undertake that the amendment will be introduced and in the period, if there is a period, intervening between the promulgation of this Bill and the passing of the amendment, the directive will be to use the power, to exercise it in all cases.

With leave of the Committee, the amendment proposed by Mr. Hopwell was withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, in his Budget speech of 16 March this year the hon. the Minister of Finance made a statement in regard to donations to a loan and bursary fund, which reads as follows“In view of the shortage of trained manpower, I am prepared to make a concession in order to assist in the solution of this particular problem. What is required is not the provision of additional university facilities—in general, there is no shortage of that—but rather, additional assistance to students who do not have the necessary means available to continue their studies. I therefore propose that companies be allowed to deduct from their taxable income, to a maximum amount equal to 1 per cent of such income, any donations they make to a national study loans and bursaries fund for assistance to needy students who wish to complete their studies at a university, a university college, or a training college or technical college. Details of this scheme will be evolved in consultation with the Department of Education, Arts and Science. This concession is over and above the existing concession in regard to technological training and will be applicable to any company whose financial year closes as from to-day. For the year 1964-5 the cost to the Treasury is estimated at R500,000”.

As hon. members have seen, provision is made in the Income Tax Act for such a deduction from a company’s taxable income. Now a fund has to be established by legislation into which these donations can be paid. I have therefore introduced this Bill in order to make provision for the establishment of a National Study Loan and Bursary Fund for students and for matters relevant to it.

In Clause 2 provision is made for the donations which will be paid into the fund by companies in terms of the Income Tax Act, the interest obtained from the investment of the money standing to the credit of the fund, and the moneys which will accrue to the fund from other sources. In order, however, to launch this fund. Parliament may make an advance to it from money voted for that purpose, but such an advance is repayable on the conditions determined by the hon. the Minister of Finance.

It is provided in Clause 3 that the control of the fund will rest with the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science, but is subject to instructions given from time to time by the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, and will be subject to investigation and audit by the Controller and Auditor-General, who will table accounts every year showing how the money in the fund has been utilized.

The money will be used for study loans or study bursaries, or both study loans and study bursaries, so that students may be given the necessary financial assistance to continue or to complete their studies at a university, university college, technical college or training college. Provision is made for this in Clause 4.

In order to advise the Minister in regard to grants made from the fund and relevant matters, a National Study Loan and Bursary Committee is established in terms of Clause 5, with the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science as chairman, three persons appointed by the Minister (with an alternate for each), to represent the donors, and the chairman of the Advisory University Committee, the chairman of the Committee of University Principals and another person appointed by the Minister to represent the University Colleges.

The three representatives of the donors will serve for three years at a time, but if vacancies occur in the meantime they may be filled. These members who are not public servants will not receive remuneration for their services, but will be entitled to travelling and subsistence allowances. The secretarial and administrative work will be done departmentally. These matters are covered by Clause 7.

It is provided in Clause 8 that the basis on which money for study loans and bursaries are made available from the fund will be determined every year by the Minister in consultation with the Committee.

This basis has already been the subject of discussion in the debate on the Vote of the Department of Education, Arts and Science last month, and I do not intend saying anything more about it at this stage except that it is the express intention that consultation will take place every year in order to determine precisely what yardstick should be applied in order to derive the greatest benefit from the scheme in the light of the then prevailing circumstances.

Clause 9 provides for the customary arrangements for the publication of regulations. These, in the main, constitute the contents of the Bill, and I now move.

We welcome this Bill. As a matter of fact we asked for a Bill of this kind. I must confess to a little disappointment in the Bill itself, but that is a matter of detail that we can discuss. We intend to facilitate the passage of the Bill through the House. Instead of preparing amendments in the ordinary way, we will suggest to the hon. the Minister, if necessary, whether he would be prepared to accept amendments on certain lines.

The contents of the Bill are really contained in the clauses referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister, Clauses 2, 5 and 8. Clause 2 deals with the establishment of the Fund and the origin of its finances. I should like to make one or two queries in regard to that establishment, because it is of primary importance.

In the establishment of the Fund that the hon. Deputy Minister has referred to, the Bill says that any money that is accruing to the fund from “any other source …”. What other source has the Government in mind? Will it be money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or will it be additional gifts that are not provided for in the Act of 1962? Then Clause 2 (2), says that any money advanced by the Government will only be in the nature of a loan. Well, Sir, I think perhaps the Government is rather niggardly in providing money. If companies are prepared to provide funds, I think the Government could have been a little more generous and could perhaps have subscribed on a R-for-R basis.

The next point I should like to make is that in the actual name of the Bill itself “National Study Loans and Bursaries Bill”, there is mention of “loans”. Now a loan, we understand, is a loan made to a student who has ability and wishes to be educated at the expense of this Fund. He makes application with the intention of repaying the loan. A bursary, I understand, to be a gift. It can be made to an able student, who in addition to being able has not the money to finance his own education, or his parents may not have the money. But there is a third kind of grant, a scholarship—that is money granted for education to a man of ability, whether his parents are rich or poor, where he receives it on merit only, and not on merit and the means test. I should like to know whether is has been contemplated that in addition to loans and bursaries, scholarships should be included.

I now come to Clause 5. In Clause 5 the constitution of the Bursary Committee, a very important body, is set out. It is very striking that it is a Minister’s committee. The Minister chooses: (a) The secretary and then three persons appointed by the Minister to represent the donors; the Minister and not the donors themselves appoints the representatives of the donors. Then there is the chairman of the University Advisory Committee—that is the fifth member and he is appointed to the advisory committee by the Minister himself; he is another nominee of the Minister. Then (d) of course is not a nominee of the Minister. And then (e), the final one, is a person appointed by the Minister to represent university colleges. So of the seven members, six are nominees of the Minister. Perhaps one or two of our speakers may refer to that, make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister and ask him whether he would be prepared to accept an amendment.

I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on one aspect of this Clause 5. That is sub-section (6): People who may not be members of this advisory committee. We usually have three reasons why a man cannot become a member, i.e. if his estate has been sequestrated, or if he has served a term of imprisonment, or (3) if he is a member of Parliament. I want to congratulate the Minister because this time he has not excluded members of Parliament. I think that is a break-through.

I now come to Clause 8 and here I ask only for information. Clause 8 reads in this way—

The “basis”. Does that mean the amount of money that will be made available for university education and the amount for technical education? I would ask the hon. Deputy Minister in replying to the second-reading debate to explain that further.

This Bill makes provision for the establishment of and control over a National Study Loans and Bursaries Fund for needy students. I think that this is such a deserving cause that any right-thinking person will have no objection whatsoever to supporting it in principle. Those who are fully aware of the truly great need that exists in this regard will not only give their support readily but will also welcome this measure most heartily. Those who realize how necessary it is for us to develop the full intellectual potential of our manpower may even wax eloquent in regard to this Bill. I am also very grateful that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has told us what the attitude of hon. members opposite is in regard to this measure. I expected a sensible person like him to adopt an attitude of this nature, although it does surprise me somewhat that hon. members of the Opposition have also congratulated the hon. the Minister and given him grateful support for his measure.

In rising to support this Bill I do so unreservedly not only in my personal capacity but also on behalf of the Helpmekaar Study Fund of which I have the honour of being a director. The Helpmekaar Study Fund has for 47 years been trying to do the same work which this Bill has in mind and I can say that to the best of my knowledge the Helpmekaar Study Fund is the only central, open and non-sectional study fund in our country from which any person can obtain a study loan for study at any of our universities. In case there are some hon. members who consider that the assistance offered by the State to make this loan and bursary fund possible is too restricted I just want to tell them that the R500,000 which the State is voting as a donation for this purpose is more than the amount which Helpmekaar has collected for this purpose over the years. I want to tell those hon. members that the Helpmekaar Study Fund has been built up with difficulty over the years by means of public donations, bequests and surplus interest payments to a figure of R406,000. Up to the end of 1962 no fewer than 2,441 teachers, 461 doctors, 376 agriculturists, 354 commercial students, 205 clergymen. 168 science students, 159 lawyers, 119 engineers and more than 1,500 other students had received assistance from the Helpmekaar Fund to enable them to qualify, numbers of them at universities abroad. I think that this information will convince hon. members of the fact that the contribution of the State of R500,000 is a very fine nest-egg for this fund to which we all give our blessing. I also want to say that Helpmekaar is extremely grateful for and proud of the fact that very many of its ex-students occupy some of the most responsible and most important positions in the country and that some of them are even members of this House. I must say at this stage that I myself am not an ex-student of Helpmekaar. Apart from this achievement, Helpmekaar is also proud of the fact that during the entire 47 years of its existence it has not had to write off one single cent in respect of bad debts. But the disturbing increase in the number of applications made to Helpmekaar and concern in regard to the question of where we are to obtain trained people in order to assist in the development of our country, caused Helpmekaar to make a public appeal for funds. This campaign was prepared towards the end of 1962 and a start was made in this regard in 1963. I am grateful to be able to say that up to the present the response of the Cape to this appeal has been R 160,000 and that of Transvaal R201,255. Unfortunately, I do not have the figures for the Free State and Natal to hand. But Helpmekaar went further and last year a representative deputation was sent to the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science to try to get the Government to agree to a contribution on a Rand-for-Rand basis to the Helpmekaar Study Fund. Unfortunately, for reasons of its own, the Government could not comply with that request although I do believe that this effort of Helpmekaar alo contributed towards making the Government realize the necessity that does exist in this regard and the great assistance that can be given in this way. I am sure that you will by now have realized, Sir, why it is a privilege and a great joy for me to support this Bill not only in my personal capacity but also as a member of the Board of Directors of Helpmekaar. I think that you will also realize the weight carried by this support which I am expressing on behalf of Helpmekaar.

The National Study Loans and Bursaries Fund is undoubtedly intended to be complimentary to existing national study funds which seek to assist students of all language groups to study at the institution of their choice. I simply cannot accept the fact that this study fund which is to be established must or will be substitutive or competitive, and I think that it would be a pity if, instead of supplementing them, it were nevertheless to have the effect of adversely affecting or eliminating national study funds which already exist and which have proved that they can do good work. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to forget the fact that this bursaries fund to be established must be a supplementary fund. He must keep this fact in mind particularly when he exercises the powers given to him in terms of Clauses 8 and 9 (b). I also want to ask him to give particular attention to Clause 2. Paragraph (a) of Section 1 empowers companies to make tax-free donations to this study fund which is to be established to a maximum of 1 per cent of their taxable incomes. This is a praiseworthy and greatly appreciated concession, I think, and I trust that it will be an incentive to really great achievements in connection with this study fund. I trust that the reaction in this regard will be swift and generous. But the possible donors who will be approached by existing national study funds for a donation will prefer for understandable reasons to make their donation to this national study fund which we are going to establish because they receive tax relief in this way. The question which worries me in this regard is this: Will all of them, or even a reasonably large percentage of them, go so far as to make those donations? Or will the hon. the Minister in terms of paragraph (b) of Clause 9 perhaps appoint people to recruit donations for that fund? If this happens, it is obvious that the fund will be benefited; if it does not happen, I fear that both this fund which we are now establishing and the already established funds will suffer thereby. That is why I take the liberty of asking the hon. the Minister whether, with a view to the possibility which I have just mentioned, he will not consider one of these two steps which I want to suggest: Firstly, either to give the same tax rebate on the donations made to existing national study funds approved of by him for this purpose or, if this does not appear to be possible, to empower approved existing national study funds to obtain donations from companies through the medium of their recruiting agents for the National Study Loans and Bursaries Fund which is to be established; provided that they will then in exchange for that service or as remuneration for that service, be given the right, just like the universities, to grant loans or bursaries, or both, to a specified amount from the National Study Loans and Bursaries Fund to students who apply to them for assistance.

I want to conclude by saying that the existing national study funds like Helpmekaar have gained extremely valuable experience of the sort of work that is envisaged as far as the Study Fund which is to be established is concerned.

Order! Is the hon. member advocating an amendment of the law?

I want to conclude by asking the hon. the Minister, when he exercises the powers given to him in terms of Clauses 8 and 9, to keep the door open for consultation and co-operation with existing funds.

I should like to support the statement made by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) and to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we welcome this Bill. I think we should place on record nevertheless that we consider that this Bill is long overdue and it is our view that it is a great pity that it has taken this Government 15 years to bring a measure of this kind before the House. Having said that, I now have something constructive to add. There are a few observations and suggestions I should like to make to the Minister, but I must say, as did the hon. member for Kensington, that we very much regret that it should be called a Study Loan Bursary Fund. We would have preferred the word “Loan” to have been replaced by the word “Grant”, but I will not enlarge on that point at this stage.

With regard to the question of repayment, I hope that this question will be very carefully reconsidered by the Minister in the future if he is not prepared to reconsider it at the moment, because I cannot emphasize too strongly that the training of our young people is a form of national investment and a very vital investment at that. I think that this question of the repayment of loans is something which the Minister might turn his mind to, and even change his mind about. If we want to encourage our more brilliant students, I think we would do well to think in terms of automatic awards to all students admitted for the first time to first degree or comparable courses at universities or other educational institutions. By that I mean students who have two or more A matriculation passes or its equivalent. That system, as the Minister probably knows, has been in operation in Britain for some time with very good effect. I hope also that the Minister will make sure, in his direction of this fund, that there will be complete equality of treatment in the allocation of bursaries for all categories of students in these higher educational institutions. I do not think it necessary to tell him that the establishment of this fund could prove to be a very great encouragement to thousands of our young people, and not only to those who want to go to universities, but also to those who want to train at technical colleges and similar institutions. Provision is made for that in Clause 4. With regard to the allocations, I would ask him to give us some assurance that when it comes to the allocation of these loans or bursaries, there will be complete equality of treatment as far as the different categories of students are concerned. Since the allocation of loans and bursaries involves automatically the principle of selection, both academic and personal, that is another argument in favour of the Government being persuaded to think generously when it comes to any sum of money voted by Parliament for this particular fund.

There is another point in regard to Clause 8. We should seriously be thinking in terms of different levels for different grants. The Deputy Minister was quite right when he said, in introducing the Bill, that the key to the matter really lies in Clause 8, which empowers the Minister to decide the basis on which these loans and bursaries will be granted. I hope he will give us the assurance that he and his advisers will think in terms of different levels for the different grants. The position should be left fluid so that this advisory committee, which is to be appointed, can make suitable adjustments in terms of different circumstances. I am thinking of young married students for instance who want to continue their studies. They might receive one type of grant. Then there are students who are not well off and who find it necessary to work during their vacations. They might be given another type of assistance, and of course there should be different levels of assistance for the different educational courses. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us some assurance on those points, because flexibility in both the level and the allocation of these grants seems to us to be quite essential.

Then with regard to Clause 5, which establishes the National Study Loan and Bursary Committee, this is a very important clause indeed. It is to be an advisory committee to advise the Minister. Its composition is very similar to the advisory committee established in Britain in 1958 for the same purpose. The hon. member for Kensington went through the personnel it is proposed to elect or to nominate to this committee. It is proposed that there shall be seven of them, all of whom are to be appointed by the Minister. We would like to propose three additional members and I wonder whether the Deputy Minister will tell us what his views are in regard to these proposals. We would plead, first of all, for an additional representative from the National Education Advisory Council to be nominated by them. We consider it most important that that council should keep in touch with the work of this particular advisory committee. They are the people whose task it is to advise the Minister on the general educational position and they will be largely responsible for instituting research programmes which may have a very real bearing on the selection of candidates for bursaries. I think it is most important that they should be represented. Secondly, we would plead for a representative of the Joint Matriculation Board to be represented on this committee and we consider that that board should nominate one of its own members. After all, my process of selection in the allocation of these bursaries must begin in Std. IX and X in the schools since that is where you find your potential university students or students for the technical colleges. In fact, the definition of a student in Clause 1 quite clearly links this Bill with matriculation students. We do consider that there should be someone who is thoroughly conversant with the situation in the schools represented on that committee. Lastly, we would ask the Deputy Minister to consider a third extra representative in the form of one person from the Manpower, Research and Planning Committee which is in the process of being formed, as we were told by the Minister when he tabled the First Report of the National Educational Advisory Council. It is surely of vital importance that this Manpower, Research and Planning Committee should be represented for the obvious reason that they, more than anyone else, will know what the country’s requirements are and what the country’s potential is in this regard. The hon. the Minister of Education told me in the House last week, in reply to a question, that he had already convened a meeting representative of 26 organizations to set up this Manpower, Research and Planning Committee—so quite clearly they and then interests must cover a very wide field. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister would consider an amendment on those lines? Apart from that, we welcome the Bill with the one proviso that we hope that Parliament will be very generous in the money it votes towards this fund.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) put a few questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister which I am sure he will reply to. She asked, inter alia, in regard to the constitution of the committee, that certain organizations should be allowed to have members on that committee, and amongst others she requested that a member of the Joint Matriculation Board should be appointed to it. I cannot see why at this stage we should bind the Minister to give certain bodies representation on that committee. If one body has a member on it, the others will also want to have members on it, and that will place an unnecessary limitation on the Minister.

She mentioned one point on which I agree with her, namely in regard to the granting of bursaries for loans on grounds other than mere achievement or merit, such as e.g. on the grounds of personality. I shall say something about that in a moment. On a certain occasion Dr. Marais, the Vice-President of the C.S.I.R., who is now the Rector of the University of Port Elizabeth, said this—

All of us agree with that, but there are two obstacles, and the one is that we do not always instil enough ambition or idealism in the children in the high schools for them to develop to the utmost, and the other is that there are not always the necessary finances.

Order! The hon. member should not digress so far from the Bill.

We are glad that the opportunity is being granted here to financial institutions and companies to make a contribution in this way to remove that obstacle. I should like to develop the point I made a minute ago, that students should not be granted loans or bursaries merely on merit. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth said on one occasion that everything should be given in the form of bursaries. I cannot quite agree with that.

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth has not even spoken yet.

We had a private conversation on the subject. In any case, he will say so because he does not really have anything else to say. I should like to express the opinion that loans which are granted to students should be interest free during the time the student is still studying, and that he should only start paying interest on the loan when he has completed his studies and is earning. It is in this regard that I should like to state that many students of average intelligence sometimes do not have the opportunity to study further. As the matter stands now, with bursaries being granted on merit, we find that only students who are highly intelligent receive those bursaries, while students who are hardworking and perhaps achieve the same results in relation to their intelligence do not always get that opportunity. They do not even receive loans, and it is in this regard that I should like to tell the Deputy Minister that students should receive those loans interest-free and only begin paying interest when they begin working. I cannot agree with the idea which is also being expressed that everything should be given to these students gratis, in other words, that everything should be given in the form of bursaries. We who have been concerned with education and are still interested in it know that when a student gets everything free he does not appreciate it.

Order! The hon. member is going too far. He can talk until to-morrow about education in general, but he should confine himself to the Bill.

I just want to make the point that we should not only give bursaries to students, but that we should also retain the idea of loans, because a student appreciates it more if he has to pay it back in time. As one who is interested in education, I want to express my thanks for this legislation and for the Committee which will be appointed to control the funds.

I appreciate the support this measure has enjoyed from both sides of the House. It is a sign that we can in fact approach educational matters like this in a sober spirit.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) wanted to know, in connection with the establishment of the fund, from what sources we would derive money. The sources are determined here. The reference to other sources, of course, covers on the one hand a loan which may be given by the State, and on the other hand donations which private organizations may make to this fund. I also want to refer to the hon. member’s plea for scholarships. The reply to that is that the object of this fund is really to assist the needy student, and not the clever student, because he can get a bursary from the university. The universities at the moment have a bursary fund amounting to about R200,000, and clever students can be helped from those funds and other bursary funds, but the problem is to assist the poor student. This fund, as the hon. Minister of Finance has said, and as the Economic Advisory Council has in fact recommended, is really intended to assist the financially needy student, and with that object in view I do not think that this fund should also be used to provide scholarships.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) asked that bodies like the Matriculation Board and the National Advisory Council and the Manpower Board should also be represented. I really hope that the hon. member will not persist in this plea in the Committee Stage. At this stage we do not feel that it is practicable, for two obvious reasons. The first is that one does not want to make a committee like this too large, because then it becomes clumsy. But, in the second place, these bodies mentioned by the hon. member are directly and indirectly represented by the Secretary for Education. The secretary, who is the chairman of these bodies, is in close contact with those three bodies, and I think that he can very efficiently act as their spokesman. I shall appreciate it if the hon. member does not insist on that amendment. Let us first see how this body functions as it is now constituted.

I also want to reply to the question as to how much money will be made available for university training and how much for technical training. I think the basis should be worked out by the committee. We can leave it to the committee to tell us how much, in their opinion, should be devoted to university training and how much to technical training.

In reply to the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy), who referred to the Helpmekaar Study Fund, I want to express my appreciation for the attitude adopted by the hon. member on behalf of the Helpmekaar Study Fund, namely that we should not regard this fund as one which competes with the Helpmekaar Fund. We are all aware of the great work done by the Helpmekaar Study Fund. This fund will not compete with the Helpmekaar, and therefore we do not intend appointing canvassers for this fund to approach people for donations. For the same reason I cannot, therefore, accede to the hon. member’s request that we should use the canvassers of other approved bursary funds for the purposes of this study fund, because, if we were to do so, we would be accepting the principle that we will employ canvassers, and we do not wish to do so.

Then I just want to say this in reply to the plea of the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto), that there should also be other grounds except achievement, like personality, for the granting of bursaries. This is a matter which will have to be thoroughly considered by the committee, and the Minister will, to a large extent, be guided by the recommendations of that committee.

I move—

As hon. members are aware, the hon. the Minister of Finance announced on 28 April this year that the surplus from the Revenue Account for the year ended 31 March 1964 will be appreciably higher than the previous Estimate of R88,000,000, and it was decided to transfer R 15.000,000 of this additional surplus to a special development account, from which money can be made available for the prospecting for and the development of minerals of strategic importance.

This Bill is intended to give effect to that decision in so far as the establishment of the necessary account, which we will call the Strategic Mineral Resources Development Account, is concerned. The transfer of this R 15,000,000 to this account will, however, be done in terms of the Finance Act.

Hon. members will note that for a start we include under strategic minerals precious metals (mainly gold) and oil, but that provision is also made for the inclusion of any other material or mineral if that should be deemed desirable. We are thinking here, e.g. of aluminium ore (we have to import aluminium), and not only of the prospecting for such ores, but also of the development of processes for the production of this metal from our low-grade aluminium ores.

We also have in mind the tracing of natural gas sources (natural gas is included in the definition of “natural oil”), the development of methods of utilizing low-grade manganese ore and the solution of the problems connected with the development of refractory gold-bearing ores.

In terms of Clause 3, the funds in the account can also be used in regard to the processing of minerals, and in that regard various projects are envisaged at the State Metallurgical Laboratory.

It is, however, not possible for me at this stage to give a precise indication as to how the money in the account will be utilized. There are so many directions in which funds may advantageously be used in connection with the development of our mineral resources that we shall have to proceed very cautiously in order to ensure that we derive the maximum benefit from this R15,000.000, and the experts in the Department in the sphere of geology, metallurgy and technology will be consulted in this regard during the recess.

Suggestions received from outside the Department will of course also be considered.

As hon. members will note, money from the Strategic Mineral Resources Development Fund will be spent in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and any unspent balance in the account must be invested with the Public Debt Commissioners, which is the usual provision applying to accounts of this nature.

This side of the House will support the hon. the Deputy Minister in this Bill because we feel that it is a necessity under present-day conditions that money should be made available by the State for active prospecting and for the exploitation of strategic minerals in the Republic. Sir, these funds will be available for the development of all natural resources in South Africa in order to strengthen our country economically and to strengthen its position from the strategic point of view. It is a pity that this measure had to come at such a late stage in the development of this country, and that the threat of sanctions, as far as oil is concerned, had to give birth to this idea on the part of the Government to do something special and urgent for the development of our country and the exploitation of the mineral resources of the Republic. I am more concerned about the fact that this decision was only taken when we came to the Treasury Vote of the Minister of Finance, when we found that he had an extra R40,000,000 available out of additional revenue. Sir, this money should have been made available originally in the Budget in order to stimulate the development of this country’s mineral resources. Our criticism is that provision should have been made for this money very much earlier, especially when one remembers that the hon. the Deputy Minister has said that this money can be used—and I hope will be used—for assisting marginal mines and to encourage the further exploitation of low-grade ore, because under present-day circumstances—I want to emphasize this—gold must be regarded as a strategic mineral as far as this country is concerned.

In addition to making this money available to prospecting companies, I do hope that the Minister will be generous and make a substantial sum available to small prospectors in order to enable them to carry out prospecting in this country. After all, it was the small prospector and the small syndicate of prospectors, who gave impetus to the exploitation of our minerals in this country. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister, when he replies, to give us some indication as to the lines along which he is thinking as far as assistance to private prospectors is concerned. One recalls that when the Minister of Finance made the announcement that R 15,000,000 would be made available for the development of strategic minerals in this country, he said that for want of a better name he was calling this Account the “Strategic Mineral Resources Development Account,” and that if anybody else could suggest a better name he would welcome it. In view of what I have said about the role played by small prospectors in the development of this country’s mineral resources, I would like to suggest that we call this the “Struben Fund for the Development of Strategic Minerals,” in order to give recognition to a man like Struben who was responsible for the discovery of the Witwatersrand goldfields.

With reference to the use to which this money will be put, we realize that it is going to be used to a considerable extent for the exploitation and prospecting of oil. I should like to remind hon. members of the different approach which is adopted nowadays in mining for oil. Formerly it was done purely by means of drilling of boreholes. To-day geophysical methods and aerial surveys are resorted to in the initial discovery of oil. May I also remind hon. members that in Australia 600 boreholes were drilled before oil was exploited there commercially, and that a sum of approximately R2,250,000 (Australian money) was spent on only five boreholes for the exploitation of oil; whereas in Canada, before they found oil in any substantial economic quantities, approximately 3,000 boreholes were drilled. That makes us realize just how great are the costs and the risks in trying to exploit and develop a strategic mineral such as oil. Australia subsidizes the development and exploitation of oil to a very great degree, as do other countries including Canada. It is not only the cost which is involved in developing an oil field, but the considerable time which is involved. Years pass by before you can exploit this mineral commercially. One remembers that in Angola approximately ten years passed before they had any economic results; not to speak of the heavy financial losses they suffered before this stage was reached.

I want to ascertain from the hon. the Deputy Minister what the position is as far as using this R 15,000,000 for the exploitation, prospecting and development of minerals in the Bantustans are concerned. Can this money be used in the Transkei for that purpose, and what is the State’s policy? I refer in particular to research, prospecting and mining in Zululand. There are rumours—I hope they are more than rumours—that the most likely area for the discovery of oil, is that particular region. If Zululand is going to become an independent self-governing country, will the hon. the Minister indicate to us what the policy of the Government is in that regard.

The main aspect on which we should like to exchange views with the hon. the Deputy Minister, is in regard to Clause 3 which deals with the utilization of the moneys in this particular account. I believe it is the firm policy of this Government to encourage and assist private enterprise to develop all minerals in this country. But the wording of Clause 3 leads one to conclude that the State may have in mind to use some of this money itself for the recovery, refinement or processing of such minerals. We on our side would like to make it clear that we do not think it should be the policy of the State to interfere in the field of mineral research and mining in any way whatsoever. We believe that that should be left to private enterprise under all circumstances. For that reason we intend moving an amendment to make it absolutely clear that all prospecting and mining for strategic minerals, as well as the refinement and processing thereof should be done by private enterprise, except that the Government can make money available for the promotion of these particular activities by the State. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to argue that this may involve difficulties as far as the development of Atomic Energy is concerned, I would like to anticipate that argument by saying that provision is already made in the Atomic Energy Act whereby the State can carry out any development it likes in that regard.

I do hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will see his way clear to accept that small amendment we intend moving from this side of the House, in order to make the position of the State quite clear in this particular regard.

I should also like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the admit of this Bill should not only be confined to prospecting for and mining of strategic minerals, but that it should also cover bursaries for research into the discovery and mining of strategic minerals. It is a very expensive career to-day for any young man to embark upon, if he wants to take a university degree. If the Deputy Minister could indicate that bursaries would be made available under this Bill to suitable candidates to undertake this particular research that we have in mind, I think that would be very welcome.

Finally, may I inquire from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he would be prepared to Table a report each year indicating the amount of money that was made available during that particular year for the development of our strategic minerals in terms of the Bill.

As I have said we on this side of the House support the Bill. This is apparently the sixth time we are supporting the Government to-day, so this is the sixth time they are lucky. I should however like to get the reaction of the hon. the Deputy Minister to the various points I have suggested.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) said it is a pity that only now that we have a surplus do we make provision for prospecting for oil. That is not quite correct, because provision is also made in the Budget for the State to participate in certain prospecting. A certain amount has in fact been voted for that purpose. He has expressed the hope that the small prospectors will also be assisted. History teaches us that some of our greatest discoveries were in fact made by some of the small prospectors. We have much sympathy for that group of people who are continually searching for minerals and who have already made great discoveries in the past.

The hon. member asked whether we could not call the fund the Struben Fund. In view of the fact that this fund will be devoted not only to gold but also in regard to other strategic minerals, I think that name will perhaps be a little narrow. I therefore think that we should stick to the present name. Although Struben made quite a big contribution towards the discovery of gold and one is grateful for what he did, I think we should leave the name as it is.

In regard to prospecting for oil, that is a very expensive undertaking all over the world. As the hon. member has correctly said, the position is the same in Australia, Canada, Angola and in the Sahara. It is an expensive process and it is just as well for us to be aware of it at this stage already.

The hon. member wants to know what the position is in regard to the Bantu areas, and he particularly referred to Zululand. It is correct that there is prospecting and boring going on for oil near Zululand. In so far as these areas are concerned, it is possible to appoint somebody as the agent to do the work for the Government. The hon. member indicated that they would move an amendment to Clause 3, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to say too much about it at this stage. He anticipated an argument and said that the Atomic Power Act already provided that the State could participate in the refining and processing of minerals. That is correct, but this Bill provides that these funds are to be used for a certain object. It is therefore not sufficient just to say that the State may do it. If the State wants to use some of this R 15,000,000, it must be authorized to use it for that object.

In regard to bursaries, I can only say that the details have not been worked out yet. When the State wants to tackle a certain project which necessitates a person receiving special training overseas, I quite foresee that this will fall within the scope of this Act, and it will certainly be considered very sympathetically. In regard to the tabling of a report, that is also a matter which can be considered in consultation with the Minister of Finance.