Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a statement I made when I was replying to the Leader of the Opposition on 26 January. I said the following—

I was obviously referring to the old Act. The new Act only came into operation last September. However, I did not use the word “old” but when I corrected my Hansard I inserted the word “old”. I want to make the position perfectly clear.

Mr. Speaker, during his speech in this debate last Friday the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) extended the customary congratulations to the hon. member for Edenvale (Dr. Koornhof) on his maiden speech. While offering his congratulations, the hon. member could not resist the temptation of having a jab at the Government. He said that the plea of the hon. member for Edenvale for the conservation of our soil should actually be made to the Government because, as he said—

I cannot but express my disappointment at this remark: I think it was completely unnecessary and that is why I want to extend the congratulations of this side of the House to the hon. member for Edenvale on his fitting and realistic speech. His appeal should find its echo not only on both sides of this House but also among all sections of the population and in fact on the part of anyone in this country who has a love for the soil.

To come back to the hon. member for King William’s Town, I just want to say that it was very clear to me that the fact that the National Party will for the first time in a very long time have a candidate in the King William’s Town constituency has violently upset the hon. member for King William’s Town. It was for that reason that the hon. member tried to conjure up ghosts here in regard to the position of King William’s Town which, according to him, will now simply be a small White spot in a Black area. I am not a psychologist, but I think that that hon. member is suffering from something akin to hallucinations. But as the hon. member has thought fit to conjure up these ghosts with a view to the provincial elections, I have deemed it advisable to raise a very thorny problem with which the people of South Africa will be faced during the provincial elections, and that is the policy of the United Party. Their policy is at the moment White leadership throughout South Africa, a policy which they say they will maintain by every means at their disposal. The announcement of that policy here in the House was accompanied by accusations against Government policy. They said that it was as an attempt to satisfy Western opinion; secondly, that it increased the danger of Communism; thirdly, that it was not the traditional policy of the Voortrekkers; fourthly, that it was a poor imitation of the British colonial policy which has already caused so much trouble in Africa; fifthly, that part of our homeland would be given to the Bantu—that was what the hon. member for King William’s Town said—and sixthly, that the preservation of White civilization in South Africa would be dealt a mortal blow as a result of Government policy.

Mr. Speaker, what is the background to this new policy statement of the United Party and this ostensible swing to the right on their part? I want to reply to this question by saying that this background is the series of unsuccessful election campaigns which the United Party has waged over the past years and which reached their peak during the by-election at Edenvale when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told his supporters that under the circumstances which we are now experiencing in Africa and which are being experienced throughout the world it was quite natural for the White electorate to support the Government. This by-election is being followed now by a provincial election which will soon be upon us, an election in which, strangely enough, on closer inspection, the struggle between the two large parties in the House will actually be waged on the platteland of Natal and in part of the Eastern Cape. Reflecting upon its defeat, the United Party has decided that the only chance which it has to do better than the Government is to bid higher than the National Party for the conservative vote in the country. That they have now decided to bid for this conservative vote and to bid higher than the National Party is conclusive proof of something which the United Party has never understood—the irresistible growth of a White nationhood and the fact that it is only by preserving and supporting that White nationhood that one can expect the support of the electorate. For this reason it is necessary for us to test this exhibition of super-righteousness on the part of the United Party against the accusations which they hurl at the Government in regard to its policy, particularly when one has regard to who has spoken about this new policy of theirs and who has remained silent, and more particularly, when one considers that some sections of the English-medium Press have also remained silent in this regard. In the first place, what actually is leadership? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that it is White control; that White leadership is White control. I want to ask this question: Is a leader a person who imposes his authority by force or is he a leader because those whom he has to lead recognize his ability? White leadership over the whole of South Africa, the leadership by 3,500,000 Whites of 14,500,000 non-Whites which has to be maintained by every means at our disposal, can never be maintained. The sort of leadership which can be maintained is rather the leadership which the Government offers in terms of its policy—political and economic guidance towards independence for the Bantu majority with the opportunity to develop to independence in their own area and, at the same time, the supremacy of the White man in his area. This is a very necessary prerequisite for such a policy. If we add to this the sort of leadership envisaged under the race federation plan of the United Party, the policy of so-called White leadership throughout the whole of South Africa becomes nothing but a policy of partnership with the White man as the senior partner, a partnership in which initially, eight White representatives will have to represent 13,000,000 Bantu, a Common Voters’ Roll for the Coloureds and the possibility, indeed, the certainty, that Coloureds will sit in this House.

Mr. Speaker, when one sees this picture one realizes that it conforms to the same sort of political pattern which has been tried in various forms of limited importance elsewhere in Africa but which has not succeeded anywhere.

No.

The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) also disagrees. Hon. members of the Opposition have advanced the argument that the numerical proportions here in South Africa are more favourable for the Whites than in Rhodesia and Kenya and other African territories. But has the hon. member for Pinelands as well as his colleagues ever considered the fact that the Black man in Africa does not ask whether his numerical superiority to that of the White man is five to one or eight to one or ten to one; he demands one man, one vote and he demands a majority government. Even Western opinion to-day supports the Black man of Africa in this demand which he makes. How can hon. members of the Opposition hope to succeed by means of a policy which may perhaps start with a few representatives for the Bantu but must of necessity result in an increase in those numbers, when it has failed elsewhere in Africa? Rhodesia is going further along this road of partnership with greater representation for the Black man than the United Party is prepared to offer and yet Rhodesia is experiencing opposition not only from the Black nations in Africa but also at UNO and even from a fellow-member of the Commonwealth—Australia.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) was taken to task here in regard to a television broadcast in which he said that these eight White representatives of the Bantu might eventually become Black representatives. He said in this House: “I know I said that and I believe that that is what will happen.” And then he qualified his remarks by saying: “… provided that circumstances change to such an extent that the Parliament of the time is in favour of it”. Sir, it will not be this Parliament, no matter what it may look like, if the United Party ever comes into power, nor will it be the electorate whom the United Party will appeal to by means of a referendum in regard to a matter of this nature who will determine who will eventually govern the country. A referendum was also held in Rhodesia and the majority of the Black people, through their tribal chiefs, supported the Constitution which they have there at present. Mr. Speaker, “it will be the numerical strength of the Black man, not only within our national borders but also elsewhere in Africa, which will make the pressure on any United Party Government of the time so unbearable that that government will simply not be able to reject the demands of the Black man for a minority Government. Now, let us test the accusations which hon. members opposite make against the Government’s policy in connection with political rights for the Bantu and in connection with the Bantustans, these accusations which I mentioned for you at the start of my speech and which the United Party of the Opposition will essentially not satisfy Western opinion. What is the position? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition on one occasion boasted that their policy would satisfy world opinion. He said—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also said this about his policy but I have just indicated that that policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will essentially not satisfy Western opinion either. The question now arises: How does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition hope to satisfy Western opinion which demands majority governments in every country in Africa? How does he hope to satisfy that opinion by means of the policy which he has to offer? This further question arises: How will the Leader of the Opposition be able to satisfy Black Africa? He has on occasion advocated friendly relationships with African states. The Government has nothing against this but how is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition going to satisfy the Black Africa States by means of the policy he has to offer?

On what is Western opinion based to-day in regard to matters of this nature? Their opinion in regard to affairs in Africa is based on the same numerical situation with which the White man in South Africa is faced—that he is in a minority to the extent of 5 to 1; and the Western world is in the minority to the extent of 5 to 1 as far as the non-White nations of the world are concerned. The Western powers realize that leadership in the world to-day can no longer be based on the scope of territorial supremacy; in other words, a country may possess large colonies and its empire may be as large as it could possibly be but it cannot acquire status and leadership by that means. On the contrary, leadership in the technological, economic, educational and even social sphere is real leadership to-day; that the way of life which one has must be acceptable to those under one’s leadership but at the same time must of necessity mean that one must remain master in one’s own area.

The accusation has also been levelled against us that the danger of Communism’s arising in the Bantustans is inherent in our policy. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition sees danger in every independent Black state in Africa but what can he do to avert those dangers? Is that danger of Communism not inherent in the dissatisfaction with White supremacy on the part of the numerically superior Black people in a mixed state? Must I go so far as to remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition of the example in this regard which we had in this House when we had the Native Representatives here and when an avowed communist, Sam Kahn, was able to take his seat in this House because of the Bantu vote? But it may perhaps also be a good thing to remind the House that although Mr. Kahn admitted that he was a communist the then Leader of the Opposition did not want to accept this fact.

Mr. Speaker, it is said that our policy is not the traditional policy of South Africa and of the Voortrekkers. The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development pointed out the other day that the Voortrekkers recognized the authority of Bantu chiefs over Bantu areas, and negotiated with them if they wanted something from them. I want to ask this question: Was it ever the traditional policy of the Voortrekkers, who developed their own form of government in this country, to allow Black people to share in the Government of the country which they inhabited? The argument has been advanced that our policy is a poor imitation of the British colonial policy in Africa. This argument is, of course, being used specifically for the edification of the large numbers of White immigrants from African countries in order to recruit their support. I want to put this question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: How can he reconcile with his policy—about which little is said nowadays—the fact that if his party ever comes into power they will re-apply for membership of the British Commonwealth, a Commonwealth which is dominated by Black states? We have not heard very much in this regard over the past while but, as far as I can remember, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition still stands by that policy.

[Inaudible.]

He says he no longer stands by it.

When last we discussed this subject, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that he was in favour of our applying for readmission to the Commonwealth. It is interesting to know that he is no longer in favour of a step of that nature. Sir, I must accordingly conclude that the United Party is itself following an obsolete imperialistic policy, that policy which they are seeking to ascribe to us, a policy which amounts to the control by the numerically inferior White people of the numerically superior Black people, as long as that control can be exercised. During this debate the other day one of the hon. members said that one must hold out as long as one can, that one must exercise control as long as one can and that when one can hold out no longer, one must abdicate. In contrast to this we have the National Party’s policy which is to love what is our own and to recognize the love of other national groups for what is their own and their right to independence. That is why we are not leaving them to their own devices as has been done under the British imperalistic policy; we are not leaving them on their own but we are guiding them and giving them the experience which enable them to reach the stage when they will eventually be able to govern themselves.

It has been said here that the policy of this Government is to give away the heritage of our fathers. May I point out that under the United Party policy the influx of the Black man into the White areas will require more and more of the land of the Whites, and not only for living purposes; the Blacks will be given right of ownership there in terms of the policy of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, White civilization in Africa can only be preserved in the first place by maintaining White political supremacy in the White areas and in the second place, by maintaining Black supremacy, guided by the hand of friendship of the Whites, in the Black areas. I believe that any influence which the West may still be able to exercise in Africa to-day can be exercised not by buying the favour of the Black people but through the medium of a strong and steadfast White Government in White South Africa. That is why, under the policy of this Government, White South Africa is without doubt an outpost and an aid to Western civilization in Africa. For these reasons one must at this stage come to the conclusion before the provincial elections that the over-emphasizing on the part of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his followers or, at least, by some of them, of the idea of White leadership, while at the same time a section of the English-medium Press remains silent in this regard, is simply a tactical trick. I want to call it the hand of Esau but the voice of. Jacob, or, translated into terms to suit the local situation the voice of Douglas Mitchell but the hand of Marais Steyn.

The whole pattern of this debate, as far as hon. members on the other side is concerned, has been typified by the hon. member who has just sat down. Under the cloak that we are making election speeches on this side with an eye on the Provincial elections, they immediately. start making election speeches themselves with an eye on the Provincial elections on 24 March. Sir, what is the message that they are trying to get across to the voter; what are they trying to tell the voter in South Africa? I think in all fairness one can paraphrase it more or less as follows: They say: “You have never had it so good; it is true that the cost of living may be rising but wages are rising so much faster; South Africa is the most rapidly developing country in the world thanks to the Government’s policy of apartheid.” Then the Government also says: “Not only is apartheid causing this rapid rate of economic growth, but in addition apartheid has some wonderful side-effects,” as they call it in the drug business. They say that apartheid will keep the Republic White, something which the hon. member who has just sat down has reaffirmed, and they say that it will make discrimination disappear. These are supposedly two important side-effects of apartheid for the public in South Africa they say it will keep the Republic White and for overseas opinion they say apartheid will make discrimination disappear. Sir, I must say that when I hear hon. members on the other side advertise apartheid it always reminds me of a good advertisement for a patent medicine: “It cures all the ills of the body politic.” There is not a single ill that it is not supposed to cure.

Sir, this is what the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs told this House the other day—

That is the message they are trying to get across, but then they say: “How does the hon. the Minister set about proving this proposition of his? He compares South Africa’s rate of growth for two exceptional years, 1961 to 1963, and follows with a period of comparatively slow growth in Europe, the United Kingdom and America, and two of the slowest years in the history of Japan. In this way he manages to get South Africa to the top of the world economically.

Which years would you take?

The hon. the Minister asks me which years I would take. I can give him some years that his own colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning, mentioned just now. Incidentally, Sir, after the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs had made the statement I have just quoted, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked him to give us figures for a longer period, and the hon. the Minister said he did not have any other statistics, although the hon. the Minister of Planning had just given us statistics over a longer period.

What a Cabinet!

Surely, Sir, if he wants to make a truthful comparison—if that is his intention and if it is not just a message for 24 March—he should take a longer period than two years. As I have already said, the hon. the Minister of Planning made a far more valid comparison when he took a period of six years, 1956 to 1962, and showed that in this six-year period Common Market countries had grown at a rate of 5.3 per cent, Japan at 8.6 per cent and South Africa at 4.3 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter, of course, is that since 1950, in the last 15 years, the Common Market countries and Japan have had a much faster rate of economic growth than South Africa has had. Their salaries and wages have risen much faster than ours, and, of course, there is a very important implication in this. If this trend continues, if salaries in the Common Market countries and in Europe continue to rise faster than they do in South Africa, then our immigration problem is going to become more and more acute. The margin of salaries between South Africa and Europe is slowly narrowing and that is why it is so essential that we must speed up our economic growth rate. It is also ironical, Sir, that the hon. Minister should have begun his comparison with the very year in which his party adopted one of the planks in the platform of the United Party, namely immigration. But the hon. the Minister did not have the courage or the objectivity to mention that the Government’s conversion to the United Party policy of immigration had a lot to do with this speeding up of the economic growth rate in South Africa.

Now, of course, Sir, we realize that hon. members on the other side are allowed some political licence with an eye on 24 March, but I think they should set a limit to it. I think a Minister particularly should not go too far in this respect; to mention a growth rate of 9 per cent for South Africa over such a short period might produce an erroneous impression of what is really happening here. After all, as the hon. the Minister of Planning himself pointed out this rate of 9 per cent obviously cannot be maintained because the economic development programme which was outlined to the House envisages a growth of only 51½ per cent per annum between 1963 and 1969. Further proof that this growth rate of 9 per cent, which he mentioned to show that we had the fastest-growing economy in the world, is simply not maintainable, is evidenced by the fact that the Government has already found it necessary to introduce rent control, to introduce building control. They have suggested further that price control, wage control and credit control may have to be introduced. What is the point in comparing our growth rate with the Japanese growth rate which, in fact, over the last ten years has averaged 9 per cent, and suggesting that we are growing faster than Japan? What is the purpose of that, except to mislead the voters outside before the coming elections? Quite clearly such a rate cannot be maintained in South Africa without ending in severe inflation which will naturally put an end to this rapid rate of growth. The hon. the Minister also tried to ridicule certain figures which were given by my Leader, as reported in the newspapers. For instance, he quoted a statement that housing had gone up by a quarter and ridiculed that. Now, from the context of the speech of my leader it was quite clear that what he in fact said was that the cost of building houses had gone up by one quarter. Does the hon. the Minister deny that fact? If he tried to build a house to-day at what it would have cost a year to 18 months ago he would realize the truth of this statement.

He also ridiculed the statement that house and flat rents had gone up between 10 per cent and 23 per cent compared with last year. He did this by citing the census index figures which show that house and flat rentals had only gone up by 3.8 per cent and 1.7 per cent. Quite clearly my Leader was referring to new flats and houses coming on the market for new families and immigrants. A careful reading of his speech would have made that perfectly clear. If the hon. the Minister had to hire a flat for this Session of Parliament and he compared the rental that he has to pay with last year’s rental he would again realize the truth of the statement that the rentals of new flats and new houses are much higher than they were a year ago, and then he would certainly not have quoted census indices because, after all, the census figures relate to the rentals of all houses and flats, most of them being houses and flats where the rentals are controlled. They do not relate to the rentals of flats and houses which are coming on to the market to-day. Again, if there was only an increase of 1.7 per cent and 3.8 per cent in flat and house rentals, why did the Government have to take rent control powers?

Sir, the Government is obviously aware that inflation is threatening with this rapid rate of growth that we have had in recent years. I am afraid, however, that the suggestion to control wages is not the way to do it. If wages are to be controlled then in all fairness all incomes should be controlled, not only wages. If that is the Government’s intention then they should go much further. Then they should control other types of income as well. They should control dividends and profits and rentals. The fashionable thing to-day, of course, is to have what is called indicative planning, to which the Government has been converted in recent years; then they should also become converted to an incomes policy, which is also very fashionable overseas nowadays. They should not only try to restrain the incomes of salaried people and wage earners; they should then try to restrain all incomes. In fact, of course, the true situation is that the inflation is due to the fact that demand exceeds supply in all commodities and all services; in that case this is in any event not a very wise way to try to control inflation by controlling incomes. The Government would only be justified in stepping in to restrict the rise in wages if they can show that wages over a long period have risen faster than productivity. This sort of thing usually happens, of course, where you have a very strong trade union movement, as in the United Kingdom, for example, where wages have risen much faster than productivity. In a situation of that kind, you can make out a case for controlling wages, but this is certainly not the case in South Africa. Taken over a long period, wages have not risen faster than productivity. The proposal of the hon. the Minister of Finance to use monetary controls to restrain excessive demand makes far more sense. That is the right way in the present situation to deal with inflation if the Minister is of the opinion, as he apparently is, that demand is exerting too strong a pull on prices. I feel, however, that the proposals put forward by him can be debated more fully at the appropriate time.

Would you agree that not only monetary but also fiscal measures should be taken?

It should be a combination of both. That is a matter we can debate at the proper time. But the Government can also do more than that; on the positive side the Government can take steps to improve the effective labour force. The situation in South Africa is not that we have a shortage of labour. We have a shortage of the right type of labour, particularly skilled labour and technical labour—technicians, technologists and administrative labour. Sir, we on this side have shown ad nauseum that for a large part the inflation which threatens this country to-day is due to the inadequate steps taken by this Government in the past in developing the skills of all the population groups, not only the skills of the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians, but also of the Whites. I want to suggest here in passing to the hon. the Minister that if the proposed rate of growth of 5½ per cent which is envisaged in the economic development programme is to be realized, the Government will have to take far more active steps than they have taken in the past to see that our various population groups develop these skills, which are urgently needed in a modern, rapidly developing technological society. They will have to make sure that an effective labour supply is forthcoming.

As far as this question of an effective labour supply is concerned, why, for example, should job reservation still be necessary when we are assured by the Minister of Railways that it only really affects 2 per cent of the White labour at the moment and when we are told, in terms of the economic development programme, that if we are to grow at the desirable rate of 5½ per cent, there will be a shortage of 47,000 White workers in six years’ time? What sense does job reservation make in these circumstances? Surely if we want to safeguard and protect the White man in South Africa the proper way is to see that he develops proper skills, not to reserve jobs for him, most of which are fairly lowly paid. In any event, what good does it do? The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that job reservation is one of the most damaging things to South Africa’s reputation. It only harms South Africa’s reputation to proceed with an idea like job reservation, which really does not serve to protect the White man at all but simply damages his image overseas, because the impression is gained overseas that the White man cannot compete with the non-White in this country unless he is protected by legal means such as this.

Do not dare to say that on a platform on the platteland.

Sir, we are not talking politics now. I am not speaking with an eye on 24 March. Furthermore, surely with the labour shortage such as it is to-day, the time has come to relax the means test for old-age pensioners. The Minister of Transport rejected this the other day. What sense does it make in the present context to stop people from earning more money when there is such a desperate shortage of labour? Surely if you want to fight inflation the correct thing to do to-day is to get all pensioners who are still fit to work to go back to work, not to discourage them but to encourage them as far as possible. What sense does it make to-day in the present economic context and what sense does it make in the next six years according to the economic development programme when we are going to have a greater shortage of White workers to adhere to the present means test? Surely the Government should relax the means text very considerably under present-day circumstances. It can have no possible harmful effects. These pensioners cannot oust White workers from their jobs because there are not sufficient White workers to cope with all the work that is available at the present time, and it certainly cannot add to the spiral of inflation because if you get increased productivity it will work in the opposite direction.

The hon. the Minister of Planning also made a point in the course of his speech that despite the prophecies of hon. members on this side—and I think he mentioned my name also—that apartheid would slow down economic growth, this country is in fact very prosperous. What conclusion has he drawn from that? He says therefore that it is quite clear that apartheid brings prosperity. But is that really so? Surely the hon. the Minister of Planning has a great many statistics at his disposal—he has quoted many figures to us. He should be aware that all economic and social statistics in this country show that when South Africa prospers, the main aim of apartheid—or at least what used to be the main aim, namely the separation of the Blacks and the Whites in the Republic and their development in their own homelands—breaks down. The faster the country prospers the faster it breaks down. It is as simple as that.

The economic development programme shows that between 1946-8 and 1960-2 the gross domestic product increased at the rate of 5 per cent per annum. That was the rate at which the prosperity of South Africa increased. But what do the census figures show? They show that between 1951 and 1960—inside that same period—the Native urban population of the Republic grew by nearly 1,100,000, from 2,400,000 to 3,500,000; i.e. 4 per cent or 5 per cent per annum. That is the same rate at which our domestic product increased. Is that apartheid, Sir? Surely the main aim of apartheid is to separate the races and that aim is destroyed more effectively the more the economy prospers. In 1953, for instance, three years after this Government came into power, the urban Bantu population exceeded the urban White population by about 300,000. In 1960—12 years after they came into power—the Bantu population exceeded the White population by about 900,000. The Minister must ask himself whether South Africa has prospered because of apartheid or whether our economic growth has made nonsense of separating the races as it has made nonsense of apartheid? That is the question he must ask himself. If you study any economic or social statistics it becomes clear that when industrial growth lags the number of Bantu workers rise slowly and when increase is rapid, as it has been over the past two years, the period of which hon. members opposite are justly and quite rightly proud—so are we—the number of Bantu workers increase very rapidly. We find that between 1957 and 1962 the Bantu employed in private manufacturing industry rose from 345,000 to 361,000, or an increase of about 16.0. That was over a five-year period. It was on the basis of those figures that the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) tried to prove that at last apartheid is beginning to work.

Is that not so?

I shall tell the hon. member whether that is so or not. I shall tell him and then he can judge for himself. With the rapid industrial development since 1962, the period for which the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs gave us the figures to show how rapidly we were growing, their numbers shot up from 361,000 to 437,000. That was the figure for July 1964. That means an increase of 76,000 in two years, or an increase of 20 per cent in Native labour in the manufacturing industry or ten times the rate per annum for the previous five year period. What further proof do you want that apartheid prospers when the country does not prosper and the country prospers when apartheid does not prosper? That is really what a boom does to apartheid—it makes nonsense of it. A boom does not occur because of apartheid but causes apartheid to break down completely.

What about the future? The economic development programme calculates our labour requirements by the year 1969, if the economy growth rate is 5½ per cent per annum, will have increased by 908,000, from 5,750,000 to 6,658,000. But of this increase of 908,000 the Whites will only supply 217,000 workers, that is to say, if they can be found. Because as the programme points out there may be a shortage of 47,000 White workers. That is on their assumption and their assumption can, of course, go either way. The balance of 690,000 will be non-Whites. The economic development programme does not break that figure down but we can take it that at least two-thirds will be Black for the simple reason that the Coloured and Indian populations are not increasing fast enough to produce that number.

So we see that in the future, as in the past, there will be more and more economic interdependence between Whites and non-Whites. We see therefore that prosperity destroys the claims of apartheid that it will keep the Republic White and make discrimination disappear. How do hon. members reconcile these facts? In fairness to them I must say that they have tried the most ingenious ways of reconciling them. How did they set about it? The claim they make for apartheid, the claim which really makes it so attractive to the unthinking voter, is firstly that it will keep the Republic White and secondly that it will make discrimination wither away. I think that was the phrase used by the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs on some occasion or other. They apparently reconcile these facts by saying that if you deny the Bantu any political rights in the White Republic and promise him these in an independent homeland you will keep South Africa White. That is how I understand it. In this way you are constituting the Native a foreigner in the White Republic and you regard him as a migrant labourer irrespective of the fact that he lives here permanently. In such a case moving him away to his homeland is still important but not necessary if I follow the latest developments in this rather abstruse philosophy of apartheid correctly. In that case you deny him all political rights where he works and lives and you give him those rights in some other place where he does not live and does not work. That is the only way I can understand it. Apparently if he has only an economic presence here but not a political presence the Republic remains White even when the Blacks outnumber the Whites two to one. Moreover, if you do not count him politically you can apparently discriminate against him economically and socially because then it is no longer discrimination. Hence apartheid makes discrimination wither away and White “baasskap”—hon. members opposite have suddenly discovered that that horrible crime of “baasskap” also falls away.

The claims made, to make it more palatable, is that this conception of apartheid is no different from the position of the Italian migrant labourer in Germany who has no political rights there. Let us develop this analogy. If we take this analogy further it would mean that German industries would have to be dependent for two-thirds of their labour on Italian workers and that the great bulk of Italians would be dependent for their livelihood on German industries. Moreover, Sir the Italians would not be allowed to sit in the German Luxuramas; they would have job reservation applied to them; wage discriminations and residential and social separation. The Italian who lived permanently in Germany would not be able to become a German citizen even if he complied with all the German naturalization laws. One can imagine to what good neighbourliness this would lead between Germany and Italy!

That theory has already been ridden to death.

It is your theory, not ours. One only has to develop that analogy to show how ridiculous it really is. I think even that hon. member now sees it.

All this sophistry as far as the Black man is concerned still does not explain how the Republic can be kept White as far as the Coloureds and the Indians are concerned. It does not explain how discrimination and “baasskap” are going to be withered away in their case. As far as the Indians and the Coloureds are concerned Government spokesmen can only talk about apartheid keeping South Africa White and making discrimination disappear by giving “White” and “discrimination” the Alice in Wonderland meanings of meaning exactly what they want it to mean. That is the only way I see in which they can explain it away.

The inescapable fact of South Africa is that for economic reasons it is impossible to separate the races in different homelands, however attractive the idea might be. Do hon. members opposite really think we prefer a multi-racial society to a non-racial society if we could help it? But it is inescapable economic facts that force us to be a multi-racial society. We do not have it because we like it. This side of the House have always realized that and surely hon. members opposite, through bitter experience, should begin to realize that too. But they refuse to accept it. They are busy developing a political system which does not correspond with the social and economic realities. The vision of South Africa being divided into a White Republic with seven or eight Black Republics alongside it. Black Republics in which the bulk of the Blacks will live, will never be realized. The Republic will remain a multi-racial country. Establishing independent Black Republics with all the attendant dangers will only reduce the majority of non-Whites living in the Republic from, say, 80 per cent to 75 per cent, or perhaps, slightly less. We shall be left with exactly the same multi-racial society they say will develop under the United Party Government with perhaps a slightly smaller percentage of Blacks living here. The same social and economic problems which the United Party Government will encounter will be encountered by this Government, with the only difference that the position will be greatly complicated and endangered, I think, by the creation of seven non-viable Black Republics on our borders.

If we look at history the great democracies of the Western world have evolved by making constant political adjustments to factual economic and social changes. It has been a step-by-step process. That is the only sensible way to go about it in South Africa too. That is really what our policy of a race federation is attempting to do. One of the facts of South Africa is that the whole dynamic process of change brought about by a rapid economic growth since Union has taken place under White economic leadership. It has brought about rapid economic and social improvements for all sections and races of the country. For the foreseeable future the economic growth will be initiated by the White man. If this process is to continue then surely it can only continue under White political leadership for the foreseeable future as in the past.

If you abandon White political leadership you also abandon your economic leadership; that is inevitable. Then this dynamic social and economic progress which, in the long run, is the only way of salving our political problems, will disappear and we will be in a far worse position. If White political leadership goes the chances are that our rapid economic development and social betterment will also come to an end. If there is one thing which all sections of the population must therefore insist on, against all outside pressures, is that White political leadership for the foreseeable future should be maintained. That does not mean White “baasskap” as hon. members opposite try to attribute to us. Surely if you share power with a man you are not his “baas” (master). If you are the captain of a rugby team you are not the “baas” of that rugby team. Hon. members opposite serve under a leader. Is that leader their “baas”? White leadership does not imply “baasskap”. They have not answered me yet. They always accuse us of trying to continue White “baasskap” when we talk about White leadership. That argument can really only be valid when one accepts that all the members of a political party who have a leader have a “baas”. It is as simple as that. I admit this will not be an easy thing to get the outside world to accept but I would say that because it is more real, more justifiable than the present policies, it will more readily be accepted by the outside world. I think it would be easier. After all this argument of hon. members opposite that the only thing that will satisfy the outside world is one-man-one-vote I simply do not accept. In how many countries in the world do you get it? When people criticize discrimination they do not only criticize it on a political basis. They criticize discrimination at all levels. If you look at the whole world, Sir, you find that this concept of one-man-one-vote is applied in such a small number of countries that if you can work out a fair and just political solution, a solution which is not necessarily based on the concept of one-man-one-vote … [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) said he was not speaking with a view to 24 March. Nor do I blame him for not doing so; it will not help him to speak with a view to that. I want to warn him that we are going to take Jeppes away from him. If ever the hon. member has succeeded in exposing the hollowness of their policy of White leadership over the entire South Africa for all time he has done so with the example he has given us. He asked whether our leader was our master (baas)? We elected our leader and we can kick him out tomorrow if we want to. I do not know why hon. members laugh. They have also kicked out their leader. A leader is therefore a person who can be kicked out. When they talk about White leadership I maintain they accept the position that the Whites can be kicked out of that position. He spoilt his whole case by giving that example. However, I do not want to go into that. If I want to speak on that I shall require more time than that available to me to-day.

We have had the pleasant experience during this debate of seeing the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) in his usual role. That is the role of complaining. We have had the pleasant experience of hearing him complain about prosperity and not about adversity. Mr. Speaker, it thrilled me to the backbone when I heard him complain about prosperity. I then thought about all the occasions on which he has complained and said there would be large-scale unemployment, retrogression and adversity. Having seen him in the role of complaining about prosperity I must admit that that role does not suit him very well. I want to give the United Party this advice: If they want somebody to complain about adversity they should get the hon. member for Constantia to do so. He looks like adversity. When he cries he cries sad tears of remorse and all we have to do is to release a number of bats so as to create the right atmosphere. But when they want to complain about prosperity they should get the hon. member for Jeppes or, better still, the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) to do so. The hon. member for Durban (Point) does not cry tears of remorse; he cries in a jovial manner and we can all join in the merriment.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to say a few words on the question of the manpower shortage. Of course, there is a manpower shortage. But I am not one of those who bewail the manpower shortage. A manpower shortage is nothing to cry about. Manpower shortage is a by-product of prosperity. You find it in all countries where there is prosperity, countries such as Holland, Germany and Switzerland. The allegation that this manpower shortage is jeopardizing our prosperity is, of course, the biggest nonsense in the world. This question of a manpower shortage is being exaggerated and it is being exaggerated with a specific object, namely, to try to create an atmosphere in which the Government can be persuaded to abolish job reservation. Mr. Rissik, the Governor of the Reserve Bank says this whole question of manpower shortage is being exaggerated. Mr. Oppenheimer says it is being exaggerated. I want to make this statement that we have a large enough potential labour force and that there are enough other methods, with which I shall deal in a moment, to maintain the tempo of our economic development. The only thing the present manpower shortage does is to prevent even greater prosperity. I readily admit that. Greater prosperity than that we are experiencing at the moment is not necessarily an unmixed blessing, Sir. There is no reason to believe that a person who makes a million rand per annum will not try to make two million. But if he wants to make it at the expense of his way of life, at the expense of his family’s happiness, at the expense of his position in society, then he is nothing but a fool. What the Opposition asks this Government to do is this: Create greater prosperity at the expense of our entire social pattern; abolish job reservation. According to them that is the only way in which this manpower shortage problem can be solved. That is the panacea which will solve our entire economic problem.

Who said that?

Does the Opposition not say we should abolish job reservation?

We never said that was the only solution.

I ask the hon. member whether or not they will abolish job reservation if they were to come into power? Here we have another example on the part of the Opposition of talking with two mouths. When you remove a Coloured person from the Luxurama that hon. member throws a fit but when you keep that same Coloured person out of St. George’s Grammar School she has nothing to say about it. Mr. Speaker, I say it would be criminal short-sightedness to think we shall be able to solve this manpower shortage problem in that way. Of course you would have greater prosperity if you abolish job reservation. There is not the slightest doubt about that. But what price will you have to pay for that? You will be sacrificing the White worker; you will destroy his power as a White man, and in the second place, by abolishing job reservation you will create a social problem which will make it impossible for us to maintain the position of the White man in South Africa. That is a price only a fool would pay and that only for greater temporary prosperity because it cannot bring about greater permanent prosperity. That is the price which no other country in the world is willing to pay. Is England prepared to pay it? By means of immigration England can get a large cheap labour force. There is no doubt about that but even the Labour Party in England is beginning to protest against the continuous stream of immigrants to England. Take the position of Australia. I have no doubt but that Australia can buy much greater prosperity by allowing Chinese and Indian labour to enter. They can create much greater prosperity for themselves but Australia is not prepared to do so. Australia is adhering to its policy of White immigrants. Why should we be asked to buy greater prosperity merely to satisfy the selfish motives of people who are only interested in making money and in making money alone, people who care nothing about the social pattern, people who are not worried about the problems that will be created. We have had experience of this type of thing, Sir. Once in our history we imported cheap labour as hon. members opposite again want us to do by asking us to abolish job reservation. Once in our history we imported cheap labour with the object of promoting the economy of Natal. We imported Indian labour to work in the sugar cane fields of Natal. Of course it created greater prosperity for Natal; of course that enriched a number of sugar farmers in Natal, but nobody sitting here to-day will not say it would have been better had we not experienced that prosperity than to have the Indian problem we have to-day. They want to create precisely the same problem in South Africa. I say there are other ways in which to overcome this manpower shortage, not only of skilled manpower but unskilled manpower. In so far as the Government is concerned in the matter it has done everything in its power and cannot do anything more. By means of immigration we are getting more immigrants to-day than ever before in our whole history.

Where do they come from?

They come from Africa and Europe. When the stream from Africa dries up, although it will not dry up very soon, we shall get them from Europe. There is not the slightest doubt about that. Nobody will say we should import more immigrants than we can absorb. As far as that is concerned, therefore, the Government also does its duty. As far as housing is concerned we are busy solving that problem as quickly as possible. We are providing more training facilities; a technological institute is about to be established in the Vaal Triangle; a new university is about to be established on the Witwatersrand. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Labour showed us the other day what the Government was spending in order to try to solve this manpower shortage. Time does not permit me to quote the figures again.

The most important thing the Government is doing to solve the manpower problem—the only way, I think, in which to solve it permanently—is this: Our problem remains that out of a population of 17,000,000, 3,000,000 Whites have to produce practically 99 per cent of our skilled labour. We must create a position in which the non-Whites can also do that work and the only way in which to do that is to encourage industrial development in the Bantu homelands and in the border areas where the Bantu can be trained and become skilled labourers. I think that is the only way in which this problem can be solved permanently. The fact that the Government is doing that is proved by its Bantu Development Corporation and all the other steps it is taking. This problem cannot be solved by the Government alone but I am not so sure that every industrialist plays the role he ought to play in solving this manpower shortage problem. As somebody who comes from an industrial constituency, as somebody who is in close touch not only with the workers in that constituency but with the industrialists there, I can say that the industrialists are not doing their duty in an attempt to solve this shortage of manpower problem. They can do much more in the way of canvassing for skilled labour overseas but they only rely on the Government’s immigration policy instead of sending their own people overseas to canvass for labour. Only a small number of them do so. They should also make better use of the existing labour force and mechanize more. I am afraid there is a tendency on the part of our industrialists to argue as follows: There is a great deal of Bantu labour available; the Government will really be forced by economic factors to abolish job reservation; why should we spend thousands and tens of thousands of rand on mechanization and automation; we shall simply continue on the basis of a great reservoir of Black labour being available until the Government is forced to abolish job reservation in which case we can train them to become skilled labourers. They are therefore expanding on the basis of having available to them a reservoir of Black labour instead of mechanizing. The new factories are well mechanized but the older factories, because of the high costs, I shall not say refuse to mechanize, but are exceedingly reluctant to mechanize. I think that is a very dangerous attitude to adopt, dangerous to South Africa and dangerous to the industrialist.

I just want to mention this: I had a chat with one of the senior personnel managers in the Vaal Triangle in connection with this matter and fee told me that he could remove 150 managers from that Triangle—Vanderbijlpark, Vereeniging and Sasolburg—without affecting the production of that Triangle in any way, that the expansion would continue as in the past. Who told us more than Mr. Oppenheimer what to do in connection with this labour shortage in South Africa? At the opening of a factory he said the following—

Including job reservation, I take it—

Mr. Oppenheimer then gave the following advice to industrialists—

Mr. Oppenheimer urged industrialists to adapt their methods to the shortage of human resources with which South Africa was faced. We cannot continue to organize our human resources in the way in which we are now. Mr. Oppenheimer also called for improved training facilities and breaking away from the old-fashioned method of using labour.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 99 (a).

I propose to deal first with a few specific points before I deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson). I must confess I was very interested in the sermon of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) on the use and abuse of statistics. As far as I recall he has not an entirely blameless record in this respect. The countries that he has mentioned as having a higher rate of growth than South Africa, namely, Japan and the Common Market countries, are already beginning to pay the penalty for that high rate. They now have to contend with problems of inflation. They have had to introduce most drastic measures to counter that. They have also had to reduce their rate of growth. So I do not think the hon. member has carried that argument much further.

The hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) has made a statement which I do not think we should allow to pass. He said that gold and foreign exchange assets in the Reserve Bank have fallen: In April of last year, they fell by some R64,000,000; between April last year and last Friday, that was 5 February 1965 they had fallen by some R122,000,000, from R567,000,000 down to R445,000,000. I think I ought to give the House the correct figures: In April 1964 the reserves in the Reserve Bank remained stationary at R504,000,000; since then they fell to R447,000,000, that is on 5 February last Friday, a fall of R57,000,000, and not R122,000,000 as mentioned by the hon. member. I think the hon. member for Constantia should put a curb on the exuberance of his natural pessimism. He always wants to see South Africa in the worst possible light.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) should also benefit from the little homily on the use and abuse of statistics. The hon. member said that the surplus of 1963-4 was almost 128,000 per cent in excess of the original estimate. Now I say, Mr. Speaker, this is an abuse of statistics and it is also rather childish. I shall illustrate it by giving a very simple example: If the surplus had been estimated originally at R1,000 and if Revenue had been only ½ per cent higher and expenditure only ½ per cent lower than originally estimated, the surplus would have increased by an astronomical figure, something in the range of 1,000,000 per cent. So hon. members will see that this way of saying there has been an increase, or there has been improper estimation is simply childish. In fact, the Revenue in 1963-4, was 15.9 per cent above the original estimate, due in part to the very rapid economic growth which the hon. member for Constantia is rather concerned about and which the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) is inclined to doubt, and the expenditure was about 1 per cent higher. Now over the five years ended 1963-4, the average underestimate of revenue was less than 8 per cent, nothing like the 128,000 per cent. And it is interesting to compare it with the last five years of the United Party Government. For the five years ended 1948-9, the average underestimate of revenue was 9 per cent, and we have not yet attained this record. Over the same periods the average error in estimating expenditure was ½ per cent for the last five years and 3½ per cent for the five years ending 1948-9. These errors in estimating are not exceptional to South Africa; you find the same position in other countries.

I find for instance that in the United States of America during the past five years, on two occasions, the overestimation of revenue came to no less than 7 per cent. So it is not something which is quite exceptional, and particularly in a rapidly changing economy like ours, with this tremendous advance in the rate of expansion, it can be expected. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) also said that it would have been wiser for this Government to have accepted the bolder scheme, the planning scheme—let me quote the hon. member “It would have been wiser to have voluntarily accepted the planning scheme which was in operation prior to 1948 under the then Scientific and Industrial Planning Council”. I take it the hon. member refers to the Social and Economic Planning Council. Now let me say at once, whatever good work this council may have done, that it never had anything as comprehensive in view as this economic development programme with which we are now busy. As a matter of fact, the economic development programme we have now was unknown at that time as far as economics are concerned. It is a newer concept.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) asked me whether the Government intends to peg the wages and salaries of civil servants and others. The hon. Minister of Economic Affairs has dealt with that question, but I think if the hon. member were to look at the State President’s speech at the beginning of the Session and at the Prime Minister’s remarks the other day, together with what the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs has said, he would see that the Government is urging restraint in respect of wage increases, and that it has said that it will check when necessary excessive and unjustified increases, not only in wages but also in prices. That is of course in the interest of all the inhabitants of South Africa.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever), has, as far as I understood, made three points in regard to the hire-purchase scheme. He said: Hire-purchase loans should be brought under the Usury Act, the Usury Act should be clarified so as to apply to effective interest rates on outstanding balances, and thirdly, that finance costs should also be brought into account. I think that is broadly what the hon. member has asked for. These points will naturally be considered in the course of the next few years, but I want to say to the hon. member that a check as we are proposing now on deposit rates, if that is not done voluntarily, which naturally curb the flow of funds to these hire-purchase banks, and it will make it very difficult for them to give these hire-purchase facilities. That will certainly curb the position that the hon. member has mentioned.

It will not stop exploitation of the public.

It depends. We will consider the other two suggestions, but this will have a retarding effect. If you have not got the funds, you cannot give the facilities.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. M. C. van Niekerk) has asked, as far as I understood him, that the tax system should be amended so as to enable a farmer to build up working capital, that is by means of tax-free deposits with the State. I am sorry to tell the hon. member that it would be entirely inappropriate for me at this stage to comment on tax proposals. All these proposals, whether they are for proposing new taxation or for reducing any taxation, are always welcome; I like to have them before me, and I will make use of them when the time comes and as far as the economy of the country requires.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) raised a number of points in connection with third-party insurance, interesting points. But some of these suggestions have already been considered by the Du Plessis Commission and by one or even more Select Committees. Personally, I think, the legislation of 1964 should be given a chance before one tampers with it. But nevertheless I shall convey to the Minister of Transport, who has to do with third-party insurance, these suggestions.

I now come to the amendment itself. I shall read the part dealing with finance. The hon. member moves—

Well, this amendment presupposes of course that there has been a rapid economic expansion, and the hon. member is quite right. With all the benefits of hind-sight he is at any rate right here. Looking back, and having the benefit of all the statistics and figures available, he is quite correct that there has been a rapid economic expansion in spite of what the hon. member for Jeppes has said. As far as the Government is concerned, this expansion that has taken place over the last couple of years, was not only foreseen but I will make the point that it was definitely planned by the Government. But the Opposition, unfortunately, never foresaw this. All that they foresaw was disaster for South Africa. They are the culprits. Perhaps I should read another amendment, also by the hon. member for Constantia and also an amendment declining to pass the second reading of the Appropriation Bill on 20 June 1961 and there they decline to pass the Bill because, amongst others—

The hon. member then said that the Government had placed South Africa in such a position that it was wholly impossible to restore the pre-1961 rate of advance. Well, the Government has done very much more than that. It has not only restored that rate, it has improved on it. I do not want to give the latest figures that I have for the last three years in full, but for the year ending June 1962 the real national income rose by 4.1 per cent, for the year ending June 1963 it rose by 9.2 per cent, for the year ending June 1964 it rose by 9 per cent. Now this is the real national income, and that is in constant terms with due adjustment in respect of any changes in the cost of living. That is, quite rightly, a very big advance, and that was foreseen by the Government—they planned for it. I will take only last year now and say that private fixed investment rose by 19 per cent, private consumption expenditure rose by 11 per cent and manufacturing output rose by 16 per cent, and the latest forecast of the Bureau for Economic Research in Stellenbosch is that for 1965 there will be a further increase in the national product. Let me read what they say—

I have said, Mr. Speaker, that the Government not only foresaw this: They foresaw it because they planned it. In 1961, when the hon. member for Constantia moved the amendment I have referred to, we had a balance of payments crisis. The Government planned and took certain steps to restore our reserves which at that stage had fallen to an all-time low of R142,000,000. The Government imposed capital control, but they succeeded almost beyond the wildest expectations, and when we in 1962 and 1963 had to deal with a sluggish economy, we just did not sit still and accept the position. We planned a recovery, and hon. members will remember that in the first year in my Budget Speech I announced the fiscal and monetary measures that we were going to use to plan this expansion. In 1962-3 there was a surplus from the previous year which was left in Revenue Account; there was a transfer to Loan Account of a portion of the grant to the Native Trust Fund; there was assistance to exporters; there was a special tax concession to exporters; we provided for production incentives of various kinds; we provided consumer spending incentives, fiscal measures, increased provision for pensioners, tax reductions—we did all that because we wanted to give an incentive to consumer spending as an absolute condition to any improvement of the economic position of the country. We undertook capital undertakings and thereby set an example to private enterprise of our confidence in South Africa—there is the Orange River scheme, there is Iscor, Sasol: The total fixed investments by public corporations, that is chiefly the Government, was R62,000,000 in 1961 and in 1962 it was R78,000,000, in 1963 it amounted to R121,000,000 and the figure for 1964 is probably still higher. We promoted export with all the Budget steps that we took in 1962 and 1963. In the meantime our monetary policy was planned to promote the economic expansion that we are enjoying, and which is, incidentally, the longest period of such economic activity that we have ever enjoyed, called “a boom” by the people. That is the longest boom that we have had in South Africa since the Second World War. Our monetary policy was aimed at making money cheaper; the bank rate was reduced to 4 per cent in June 1962 and to 3½ per cent in November 1962. The liquidity in general was adequate and it was not necessary to take special steps to expand credit; that looked after itself.

So all that the hon. member has said we did not foresee, we did foresee and we actually planned it. All the advance that we have had in the last couple of years has been definitely planned by this Government. Because a Government’s task is only to create the climate for expansion. Expansion itself is the task of private enterprise. And I want to pay a tribute to the massive contribution of private enterprise in making use of the opportunities provided by the Government. They were seized with both hands and helped to bring about this state that we have to-day.

It is not only this expansion that the hon. member was generous enough to record that was planned by us, but later on we also saw the implications of success, the implications of prosperity, and we took the necessary steps to counteract certain developments. At a certain stage it was no longer growth that was to be encouraged, but it was stability, and last year I came with a Budget which was designed not to further encourage growth, but rather to lay the emphasis on stability. As far as the balance of payments are concerned right throughout, we have been building up our reserves and we are now contemplating to increase our quota to the International Monetary Fund from 150,000,000 dollars to 200,000,000 dollars. That will give us a gold trance, which is really almost in the same category as a gold reserve—you can draw on it at any time; it will give us a gold trance of 50,000,000 dollars, or R35,000,000. We have been entering into foreign loans to increase our reserves, to build them up so that they can withstand the strain of an expanding economy. We have increased our revolving credit with a number of banks in the United States from 20,000,000 dollars to 40,000,000 dollars, that is an increase of R14,000,000. We have also entered into a revolving credit with some German banks, also for R14,000,000. That is what we have done to ensure that the one pillar of economic expansion should not be found wanting, that is our reserves.

There is a shortage of skilled labour. Now let me say at once that this is not a problem that is peculiar to South Africa. It is a world-wide problem to-day. It is always a problem when you have an expanding economy. But we took the necessary steps to counteract that shortage. The hon. Minister of Immigration took active steps to encourage that. We increased the facilities for vocational education and for technological training. But now let me say also that the fact that there is a shortage, particularly of skilled workers is not an unmixed evil. There is some merit in it; on occasion it acts as a self-regulatory power to see that the economy does not become over-heated, and in the 1965 forecast of the Bureau they put it very clearly—

If we had had unlimited labour supplies of the kind that we want, our economy would have been exposed to another danger, either from the capital position or from the balance of payments position, and we have by this self-regulatory force, this corrective force, been able to see that our economy does not become over-heated, and that we do not fall foul of other troubles which may impede our growth. After all, it is much more advisable rather to retard your economy moderately for a short time than to go on expanding at this rate and invite the dangers of inflation with all its long-term disasters for any country in the world. It is quite true, and we recognize that, that prosperity breeds problems, and particularly when you have such a prosperity extending over such a length of time. Then you are bound to run into problems along the way. This expansion of our economy has lasted, as I say, for a long period of time. The mere fact that it has lasted for that period of time is sufficient answer for those who say, as the hon. member for Constantia says, that we have failed to foresee the difficulties arising from the rapid economic expansion. If we had failed to foresee those difficulties, it would not have been possible for us to have an economy expanding for such a long period of time, for such a record period, as we have had in South Africa.

I look again at the amendment and I think it is totally unnecessary in view of what I have said to admonish the Government to meet the difficulties arising from a rapid economic development, and if I look at the United Party record since 1961, in financial affairs, then an admonition of this kind is not only necessary but it is presumptuous.

If the Government had heeded what the United Party asked us to do since 1961 and even before that, then the economy of South Africa would indeed have been in a parlous state. I want to give one example. If we had heeded their advice last session to distribute a further R50,000,000 of revenue to the public of South Africa, it would have induced much more consumer spending than we have actually had. It would have meant that the inflationary pressures would have been much stronger than they are to-day. It would have meant that we would have been obliged to take much more drastic measures to combat those inflationary dangers. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) agrees that at the first stage of inflation it is not necessary to apply all these drastic measures that they have had to apply in the Common Market countries. There it might probably be sufficient if one makes use of the classic remedies for your monetary and fiscal policies, but if we had followed the advice of the United Party last year when they asked us to distribute more of the surplus to the public, the position would have been such that we would probably to-day have required much more drastic measures than those which are required when you have a rate of total demand exceeding the rate of production of goods and services. It is not only this one example, but if one looks at the arguments they have used over the last period of years, even before 1961, one sees the same pattern. The United Party has seldom been right on financial matters. Looking at their pitiable financial record, I think one is entitled to say that seldom have so few (and getting fewer after every election) been wrong so often as the United Party. This Government has given South Africa what it requires, growth and stability.

But not what it deserves.

Both growth and stability, and not the one at the expense of the other. It will continue to be our aim to give to the Republic of South Africa continued growth and stability, and with the co-operation of the private sector and of all sections of our population that will not only be our aim but also, please God, our achievement.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYFS—89: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. T.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Merwe, P. S.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Rensburg, M. C.G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M., Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—44: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R.B.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A; Graaff. de V.; Henwood, B.H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Holland, M. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O.N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Warren C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

The Bill now before us for its third reading is probably one of the most complicated pieces of legislation that Parliament has ever had to deal with. The amendments in the Bill before us are spread over something like 637 pages in the parent Act itself, which in bulk constituted approximately half of the legislative programme of that particular session of Parliament. It deals in one way or another with the safety of practically every type of vessel entering our territorial waters or our ports, and also every type of vessel now comprising our tremendously increased fishing fleet, which is still developing very rapidly. It deals also with the new type of shipping which is developing, the big tankers and bulk loading craft, which enter our territorial waters and our ports. It covers also the many provisions necessary to ensure the safety of life of every person, either crew or passengers, sailing in these various craft. Some of the amendments in the Bill before us provide the facilities which the Department has long required in order to be able to apply stricter control, particularly in regard to safety equipment and life saving equipment on the Republic’s own smaller craft registered in our ports, the fishing fleet which is now growing into a fleet numbering several hundreds of vessels, and particularly in regard to the type of ships ranging between 50 and 100 tons. The fishing fleet comprises anything from the small type of vessels to deep sea trawlers displacing ±600 tons. There has always been a control lag owing to the definitions of certain of the powers granted to the officials, and we are happy to see that the Bill before us now overcomes that difficulty and makes their task easier. The Bill also brings our own legislaiton into line with the latest legislation passed in other countries, and it certainly simplifies the very abstruse wording used in some of the international conventions. The Republic’s maritime responsibilities which are covered by this legislation in regard to sea-going traffic extend very far, due to modern developments and particularly in respect of the bulk carrier type of ship, and our own development involving this type of craft has also imposed certain additional responsibilities on us. This Bill with its amendments and its clarification of the international conventions should go a long way towards assisting the Department in performing its very arduous duties in regard to oil, minerals and bulk cargoes of all that type of thing which are now moving in and out of our ports. I suppose it is fair to say that the problems of the Department responsible for carrying out this legislation have increased far faster than the facilities and the staff available to the Department have been able to do. We on this side of the House give this Bill our full support as a marked improvement in the sea charter of the Republic, but in the second-reading debate I made certain suggestions to the hon. the Minister which he very kindly promised to have examined. I do not wish to repeat them, but I just want to quote one example which has a bearing on what I said. I quote from a letter I have since received, which also contains a number of other suggestions, and which clearly indicates some of the problems his Department has to face. This deals with just one type of vessel. The letter emanates from one of our seaside areas and it says, amongst other things—

His attention was drawn to the dangers and risks involved in this overloading, but that was the only response he gave. The letter goes on to say that the boat had no oars nor any kind of live-saving equipment visible, unless they lay under some hundreds of shells, and the writer says that it was one of the most foolhardy efforts to make money that he has ever known. The letter gives quite a few other instances and I propose to hand it over to the Minister because it may be helpful to him and his Department, because they typify some of the criticisms I voiced in regard to lack of control. As I say, the Opposition gives the Bill its full support because we think it a marked improvement in our shipping control, but in conclusion we again want to stress that it would be the height of folly to rely on this legislation, this up-to-date charter which de pends so much on expert administration to achieve the benefits and improvements it can produce, unless the legislation we are approving of to-day marches step by step with corresponding improvements and advances in the facilities and the personnel of the Department whose task it will be to translate the various controls covered by this Bill into positive action which is necessary in order to derive full benefit from the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr. Speaker, to supplement what the hon. the Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science and the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) have said in connection with this matter, I just want to add that the Senate and the Council of Rhodes University have gone very thoroughly into these proposed amendments of which the most important is that of the appointment of a permanent vice-principal. I think it is generally known that the person who is doing that work temporarily at the moment is Professor Rennie and as a member of the council of the University I can say that we are fully aware of the fact that the appointment of Professor Rennie as a full-time vice-principal will mean the loss of a particularly valuable lecturer. But the needs of the University are such that it has become urgently necessary to recommend this appointment. Some of the larger universities have vice-principals but there are others, particularly the smaller ones, who do not have a vice-principal. But the activities of Rhodes, particularly its research programme, are such that it has become impossible for the principal and vice-Chancellor to cope with that work alone. It is extremely essential for the university to continue with its research programme, a programme which makes a very valuable contribution particularly in the Eastern Cape. For example, the university has attached to it the Social and Economic Research Institute which is largely dependent on a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. This section is busy at the moment carrying out economic research in the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage complex, including East London. A great amount of research work is being carried out in the Transkei, work which is of great value in getting to know the Xhosas of the Transkei and assisting them. Research is being conducted into the Bantu Christian churches and into the role the socio-political system plays in certain tribes. This research also extends to the agricultural sector, as the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) in whose constituency the university is situated, and also in his capacity as chairman of the Agricultural Union of the Eastern Cape Province can confirm. A great deal of research is being carried on in connection with the agricultural possibilities and also into the further development of the Kowie River and the harbour there. This scheme has been in progress since 1820; progress is made at times and none at other times, but it remains something that can benefit by research. That was why we actually felt that although it would mean a loss to this university, the loss of a greatly appreciated lecturer, this loss would, on the other hand, be outweighed by the importance of this appointment to the university as a whole and to the area in which it was situated. For that reason I can give my wholehearted supported to the Bill which is before the House.

Firstly I would like to associate myself with the remarks which my colleague, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), made last week in welcoming this Bill on behalf of this side of the House. But I would like to go a little bit further than the hon. member did and say that as the member representing the constituency in which Rhodes University is situate, I particularly welcome this Bill because the very fact that it has been necessary to introduce the Bill at all is in itself proof of the very rapid growth which Rhodes has enjoyed since 1949. In that year Rhodes University, under the Act which this Bill now seeks to amend, graduated in status from a university college to a full university. That 1949 Act was piloted through this House by my highly respected predecessor, the late Dr. Tom Bowker. I say “Dr. Tom Bowker” because Rhodes University, in recognition of his services, both as far as that particular Bill was concerned, and in other ways, conferred a honorary doctrate upon him. I think it was typical of the man that he did not wish to be known as Dr. Bowker, but he preferred to be known as he had been to so many people as Uncle Tom.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) who has been a member of the Rhodes Council for many years and is therefor completely au fait with the workings of the Council and with the workings of the University in general has mentioned that the appointment of a permanent vice-principal will be of very great value to the university. I do not want to cover the same ground as the hon. member did, but I do want to emphasize that the appointment of that vice-principal to exercise the functions which are delegated to him by the principal, even where the principal is present at the university, will mean a tremendous amount to Rhodes and will most certainly facilitate their administrative work and take a great deal of the burden of the work off the shoulders of the principal and will generally contribute materially to wards the smooth functioning of the university.

Sir, apart from that, I think the Bill either provides for certain changes which experience has shown to be necessary since 1949—an example of that, although it is not specifically mentioned by name in the Bill is Section 3 (1) which has reference to better representation for the municipalities of Walmer, Uitenhage, King William’s Town and Queenstown—or else it provides for the expansion of the two governing bodies of the university, the Council and the Senate, in order to bring those bodies into line with the growth which has taken place since 1949 and to enable them to cope with growth in the future. The growth which Rhodes has in fact shown, in company, of course, with other universities, has been truly remarkable, and the student numbers have more than doubled in the last ten years, having increased from 785 in 1954 to 1,627 in 1964. That, in itself, of course, has led to a growth in the number of graduates of the university and therefore a growth in the number of members of Convocation, and again the Bill provides for that, seeing that the numbers who can be elected by Convocation to the Council are being increased from two to three.

I think that one can expect a university situated in one of our large, rapidly expanding cities, to grow in sympathy with the growth of that city, but I think what is remarkable about the growth of Rhodes is that it has expanded, despite the fact that it is situated in what is a country town which has not itself grown very much since 1949. I think that also highlights the fact that Rhodes is not merely a regional university drawing its students from a restricted area, but that it draws its students from all over the Republic, as well as considerable numbers from Rhodesia. It is also due to the fact that Rhodes is rather unique amongst English-speaking universities of the Republic in that it is organized on a purely residential system like some of the old universities of Scotland and England. Sir, although Rhodes is an English-speaking university and has developed since 1904 from classes, such as surveyors classes, which were provided by an English Church school, St. Andrews which in turn developed as early as the 1850’s from various educational institutions established by the British settlers of 1820, yet it is true to say that Rhodes has served both of the two main sections of the European population and that it has made a contribution to our nation out of all proportion to its relatively modest student numbers. That applies particularly in the fields of law, commerce, science and education. For example, there are several old students of Rhodes who are currently making notable contributions to Afrikaans literature, and among them I might mention the editor-in-chief of the Afrikaanse Woordeboek and the director of the Vaktaalburo. Until a year ago, an old graduant, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, was, of course, a member of the Cabinet.

The Bill, as I have said, will also enable the University to cope for some considerable time with expansion in the future and I am confident that that expansion will in fact take place despite the loss of students to the new University of Port Elizabeth. I am glad to be able to say that now that the considerable dust of public controversy, which was stirred up when that new university was established, is settling down, Rhodes genuinely wishes the new University of Port Elizabeth well. The relationships between the new principal of Rhodes and the authorities at the new university are excellent, and the universities are in fact co-operating over a very wide field.

There is definitely room for both universities in the Eastern Cape and given goodwill on both sides there is no reason why there should be any friction or conflict between the two. The new university, situated as it is in one of the Republic’s major seaports, which is also a large commercial and industrial centre of every-increasing importance will have plenty of scope for expansion, particularly in certain rather specialized fields where Port Elizabeth provides the amenities and facilities. I am thinking, for example, of the Faculty of Medicine, due to the large hospitals there, the Faculty of Engineering to serve the motor and allied industries and lastly, but perhaps the most important, the textile technology which would be particularly suited to a university in what is the Republic’s major wool port, particularly since the Wool Research Institute has been transferred from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth.

Rhodes, on the other hand, situate as it is in what is an educational centre surrounded by farming areas, has other fields into which it could branch out. Here I am thinking of fields such as agriculture and veterinary science where Rhodes has in the past served the farming community of the Eastern Cape and served it well. I might mention as two illustrations the work that was done by entomologists there on the control of the blue tick and on the research work in citrus and pineapples as regards trace elements. But it is not only in the new fields that I am certain the university will expand. There are certain more traditional fields where it is expanding and will expand in the future. I would just like to mention the recent founding of the Institute for the study of English in Africa, of which Rhodes is the curator. This foundation must renew the interest of all South Africans, Afrikaans-as well as English-speaking, in the correct and proper use of the English language and in the proper appreciation of the very rich store of literature of that language. For these reasons, Sir, we welcome this Bill.

I appreciate the general support this Bill has received from both sides of the House. The previous two speakers both have a particular interest in this educational institution. The previous speaker is the most recent appointment to the council and the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bennett) who has just spoken, spoke as the parliamentary representative of the constituency in which this higher education institution is situated. I appreciate his interest and I want to express the hope that he will follow in the footsteps of the highly esteemed previous member, Mr. Tom Bowker or, as we together with you, Sir, shall call him, out of respect, Dr. Bowker because of the honorary degree which he fully deserved, conferred upon him. I trust the hon. member will follow in his footsteps as far as interest in this institution is concerned and as far as the promotion of good relationships between the Afrikaans and English-speaking sections are concerned, a desire which, as a matter of fact, was evident from the speech of the hon. member. I invite the hon. member not to hesitate to come and discuss with the Ministry and the Department of Education any problems which he as a Member of Parliament will encounter.

The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) is a member of the Council of the University and consequently has first-hand knowledge as to the necessity of this measure. I appreciate the fact that he has referred to the academic service rendered by the proposed vice-principal whose services we are sorry to have to lose but we are nevertheless grateful that he can offer his services to the university in a higher capacity. The reference to the expansion of the numerous research projects, of course, only highlights the necessity of expanding the Senate for which provision is made in this measure.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr Steenkamp) who was the first speaker on that side spoke equally appreciatively about this measure and was particularly pleased about the deletion of the provision that the appointment of the principal and the vice-principal be subject to the approval of the Minister. In this respect I can just say to the hon. member that the deletion of this provision is probably also evidence of the high regard the Government has for the University of Rhodes. I wish to express the hope that this measure will assist this higher education institution to develop further along the healthy path on which it has set itself.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

There is in existence a Convention whose aim it is to prevent and combat counterfeiting of currency at international level and it has become necessary for South Africa to become a member of that Convention. Before you can join the Convention, however, it is necessary for every contracting party to bring its legislation and administrative organizations in line with the rules contained in the Convention to the extent to which they are not already in line with them. One of the most important requirements contained in the Convention is that the contracting parties must cause persons found guilty of certain crimes concerning the counterfeiting of currency or persons suspected of having committed such crimes to be extradited, even in those cases where there are no extradition agreements between the parties concerned. Withdrawal from the Convention can take place after one year’s notice.Perhaps I should explain the clauses of the Bill one by one to the House. Provision is already made in our common law and statute law for action to be taken in cases of the counterfeiting of currency but, particularly in the case of paper money, these provisions are inadequate. Clause 1 of the Bill under discussion is the definitions clause and agrees in the main with existing provisions.

Clause 2 contains the prohibition provisions which briefly amount to this that anybody who (a) forges or alters a bank note (b) without lawful authority imports or receives into the Republic counterfeit coins or any forged or altered bank notes (c) has in his possession, etc., any tool, instrument or machine intended for making any counterfeit coin or making or preparing counterfeit currency; or (d) does anything else with regard to currency with the object of fraud, will be guilty of an offence and liable to be punished in terms of the penalties laid down in the clause. The penalties are more or less in conformity with existing legal provisions in this connection.

Then I come to Clause 3. Clause 3 governs the extradition of persons, who, because of certain crimes in respect of counterfeit currency have been convicted or are suspected of having committed such crimes, by the Republic to countries who have joined the Convention. It really amounts to this that the provisions of the Extradition Act of 1962 will apply in such cases irrespective of whether there is an extradition agreement in existence between the Republic and such countries. In terms of the Convention other signatories will have to act likewise in respect of the extradition of similar offenders to the Republic. The existing arrangements naturally fall away if the Republic or the country concerned withdraws from the Convention.

Clause4: The provisions of this clause are aimed at making it easier for the State to discharge the onus resting on it. It is hardly necessary for me to point out how costly it would be and what serious delays could be occasioned if the membership of the convention of a foreign State has to be proved in the normal way every time application for the extradition of a citizen of that State is made. The onus which is placed on the accused in terms of sub-section (2) is light and it should not be difficult for him to discharge it. As against that it is practically impossible for the State to prove that the accused had no lawful authority or excuse for being in possession of the goods concerned or for having committed the act in question.

Clause 5: The necessity for the provisions of the Native Territories Penal Code falls away and they are consequently repealed. The amendments to the Crimes Ordinance of the Transvaal which are effected by Clauses 6 and 7 are necessary because the matters concerned will in future be governed by the proposed Act.

Clause 8: In order to comply with the requirements of the Convention it is necessary to bring the penalties prescribed in the South African Reserve Bank Act, 1944, in respect of the forging of bank notes, in line with those laid down in paragraph (i) of Clause 2.

Clause 9: For the sake of effective working it is regarded as essential that all amendments to the South African Reserve Bank Act, 1944 (which already applies in South West Africa) should also apply in that territory.

Clause 10: It is a requirement of the Convention that all seized counterfeit coins or forged or altered bank notes or certain tools, etc., should be handed over to the foreign State or the bank concerned in that foreign State of which the currency in question is purported to be the currency. The necessary provision in this connection is made in Clause 10. Then I come to Clause 11. With the exception of this provision, this Bill, which amends other Acts, has been made applicable to South West Africa with the approval of the Administration of that territory.

It is clear that this legislation can only come into operation after we have become a member of the Convention to which I have referred and provision is made for that in Clause 12.

We on this side of the House recognize the necessity for this Bill and accordingly have no objection to the passing of the Bill and will support it. It would be interesting if the hon. the Minister could tell us when he thinks this Bill will be brought into full operation because it is obviously an important measure, especially at a time when crimes of this nature are increasing …

Especially in view of what happened yesterday.

As I say, crimes of this nature have been increasing and people have become very much cleverer at counterfeiting. It is of great importance that this legislation should come into full operation as soon as possible.

I agree with the hon. member that it is very necessary that this legislation be passed as soon as possible. I do not wish to comment on a case which is still pending. Hon. members have heard that certain persons were yesterday found to be in possession of $500,000 in allegedly counterfeit money. Hon. members will realize, therefore, that if this report is true it is even more necessary for this legislation to be passed as soon as possible. But this matter is, of course, one on which I do not wish to comment. As soon as the Bill has been passed the Department of Foreign Affairs will apply through the usual channels for admission to the Convention, and as soon as this is achieved—I do not anticipate any problems in this connection—the legislation will be promulgated. I cannot give the hon. member a definite date because I do not know for how long these negotiations will continue.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

It has been felt for some considerable time that certain amendments to the Administration of Estates act are urgently needed. The Department has been consulting all the parties and bodies concerned over a very long period and the result is the Bill which hon. members have before them. I can well imagine that hon. members will perhaps find it difficult, since so many amendments are being made to the Act, to follow them. I have therefore undertaken to give hon. members a White Paper in this regard, and if hon. members feel that after my second-reading speech they do not wish to discuss the matter further, pending the handing in of the White Paper which I will give hon. members in due course, then I have no objection.

The Administration of Estates Act, except for a number of minor amendments, is substantially the same Act as the one passed by Parliament in 1913. In addition, it is one of the Acts which, in terms of a resolution adopted by this House, still has to be consolidated and the Nederlands text translated into Afrikaans. As hon. members will probably remember, a Bill to replace the Administration of Estates Act was submitted as long ago as 1950, but that measure, for various reasons, of which the reservation of administration of estates by the legal profession and certain other bodies was the most important, was not proceeded with and lapsed when Parliament was prorogued in 1950.

The measure which was introduced in 1950 has since then been considerably revised and consultations have taken place with interested parties over a very wide field. The measure now before the House does not contain the much-resented provision of the 1950 enactment and is the result of consultation with experts in the field of administration of estates. It will be appreciated that the Administration of Estates Act of 1931, which has been successfully applied over a long period in administering estates, serves as the basis of the Bill which is now being introduced. Many of the provisions of the existing Act are readily recognizable in the provisions of this Bill. Advantage has been taken of this opportunity, however, to fill in gaps and in general to strengthen the control over the administration of estates. Where practical new principles which will redound to the benefit of interested parties have also been inserted. In view of the fact that everybody is reasonably well acquainted with the provisions of the existing Act which has operated for so many years, it is not really necessary to deal with or to elucidate the existing provisions which are being re-enacted in this Bill. It is important, however, to draw attention to the main principles and procedures which have been incorporated in the Bill.

It will be observed that Clause 2 provides, inter alia, that in future nobody can be appointed to the post of master, deputy master or assistant master, unless he is in possession of certain legal qualifications. This provision really only gives legal effect to a situation which largely exists to-day since the senior posts in the Master’s Division are already filled by qualified officials. The provision does, however, give this division the status which it deserves and it gives the public the assurance that matters which to them are of great and real importance are entrusted to persons who are best equipped to watch over their interests. It is for this reason that we have inserted the requirement that the officials concerned must have certain qualifications.

I refer hon. members to Clause 14. The difficulty experienced in the past in appointing an executor in those cases where the testators will was outside the Republic, or where he drew up a will jointly with some other person and where the will was registered with another Master, is now being removed by empowering the Master under Clause 14 to accept a copy of such a will. Hon. members who are legal practitioners will know what problems and difficulties they have had in practice in this connection in the past.

Then I also refer to Clause 23. An important change is being brought about here in the provisions governing the security to be furnished by executors. The Master is now being empowered, even in the case of executors who are normally exempt from furnishing security, to demand security or additional security if the estates of such persons are to be sequestrated, or if they are about to go and live outside of the Republic or if there is any other good reason for doing so. This change is essential for understandable reasons and will, it is hoped, obviate a repetition of serious losses which have been suffered in the past in similar cases.

I now refer hon. members to Clause 25. Problems which have been experienced in the past in the case of testators who resided outside of the Republic or who only had a right to dividends on shares in the Republic or who were the owners of debentures in the Republic or any right to interest due thereon, are now being eliminated by the simple procedure which is prescribed in Clause 25 for the administration of such estates.

Then I come to Clause 26. A defect in the existing Act is being removed in Clause 26 by granting an executor certain indispensable powers with regard to the custody of and control over the assets and documents of the estate.

Clause 27: Here provision is being made for greater protection of the assets of the estate by placing a prohibition on the disposal of assets which are not mentioned in the inventory lodged by the executor.

Clause 28: Important principles, some of which may greatly benefit estates and may even stimulate the country’s economy to an appreciable extent, are being introduced in Clause 28. Provision is now being made, for example, that executors may open the banking account, which they are obliged by law to open in the name of the estates which they administer, with any banking institution approved by the Minister. What is of greater importance, however, is the fact that executors are not being empowered, subject to the approval of the Master, to invest estate moneys which are not immediately required for the payment of claims against the estate in a savings account or some other interest-bearing account with their banking institution or with a building society. The clause contains provisions which will ensure effective control over such money, and there is every reason to believe that the investment of such estate moneys in this way will prove to be just as successful as the investment of trust moneys held by attorneys has proved to be in recent years.

Hon. members will observe that the interest which is earned as a result of that investment will accrue to the estate as such and not to the attorney or any other individual. It can only benefit the estate therefore. The person who is charged with the duty of making the investment is the executor who in the majority of cases is also an interested party. For the rest, precautionary measures are being taken, of course, to ensure that the money is invested with an approved institution and the Master, of course, also has a say in that connection. Hon. members are aware of the fact that particularly where one deals with big and complicated estates, estate moneys sometimes lie in a banking account for years without earning interest, without any benefit accruing to the interested parties or their heirs. This happens not because the attorney or the bank or the institution concerned dawdles with the administration of the estate, but simply because it takes a very long time to dispose of certain formalities in the case of certain estates and because it takes a long time to realize certain assets. In the meanwhile, of course, the estate cannot be wound up until everything has been disposed of and the result is that the heirs suffer great losses. I believe that hon. members who are legal practitioners will welcome this provision, and I also believe that everybody who at some time or other will leave an estate will also welcome it, although they will probably hope that they will not have to make use of this provision very soon.

Clause 34: The uncertainty which exists at present in legal circles as to which legal provisions are applicable where the estate of a deceased person appears to be insolvent, is now being cleared up in Clause 34. It is now being stated clearly that in those cases where the creditors do not give instructions that such an estate is to be sequestrated in terms of the provisions of the Insolvency Act, the assets of the estate must be realized and divided in terms of the simple procedure laid down in this clause. The procedure which is prescribed here really only gives legal sanction to the procedure which has been followed hitherto in practice and which has proved to be effective. For the rest, the cases in which a Master may make a summary order as to the way in which the assets of such an estate are to be realized and divided are now being extended to estates in which the assets do not exceed R2,000, instead of R600 as at present, and the clause provides, for reasons of efficient administration, that in those cases where the executor realizes and divides the assets of the estate in terms of the provisions of the relevant clause, the day after the expiry of the period which is given to the creditors to give instructions as to whether the executor must hand over the estate, shall be deemed to be the date of sequestration. Here too I think hon. members who are legal practitioners will welcome the fact that the amount is being increased from R600 to R2,000. It now becomes a realistic amount. As far as Clauses 38, 43 and 44 are concerned, these clauses provide that special measures have to be taken to protect the inheritance of minors. Clause 38, for example, provides that where the property of the deceased is taken over by the surviving spouse, such taking over can only take place if security has been furnished for the payment of the minors’ shares. Furthermore, Clause 43 provides that no cash or, if the Master so directs, other movable property which is due to a minor out of the estate of the guardian’s deceased spouse, shall be paid or handed over to the natural guardian unless he furnishes security. Furthermore, the guardian has to lodge with the Master a full statement of moneys or property thus received by him. Movable property which accrues to a minor from a deceased estate but which is subject to a usufruct or fiduciary interest will in future not be paid or handed over to the usufructuary or fiduciary unless he furnishes satisfactory security for the payment of the money or the value of the property. The testator may, however, exempt the usufructuary or fiduciary from furnishing security, and the relevant provisions will therefore only come into operation 12 months after the date on which the Act comes into operation so as to give testators the opportunity to make provision for the necessary exemption in their wills, if they choose to do so. Hon. members will observe therefore that the testator is being given the right to allow the necessary freedom to the fiduciary if he chooses to do so. If, however, he makes no such provision in his will, then the provisions of the Act will apply. The century-old provisions contained in Section 56 which prohibit the re-marriage of the surviving spouse in certain cases unless he furnishes adequate security for the shares of the minor children of the deceased spouse, will disappear now except in certain cases, which will be dealt with later, because the Bill makes adequate provision in this connection, because the existing provisions, in any event, do not apply to all cases and because a stepparent, for example, is placed in a more favourable position than the natural parent and because it frequently causes unmentionable misery when the surviving spouse is about to re-marry and then discovers for the first time that he has to furnish security which at that stage he is sometimes not in a position to do. Hon. members are aware of the problems which they have encountered in that connection as legal practitioners.

Clause 46: An executor who fails to pay any moneys to the Master or a rightful claimant or to deposit such money into a banking account when he is obliged to do sy by law, or who uses or allows estate property to be used in an irregular way, will be liable in future to pay into the estate an amount equal to double the amount or double the value of the property so used, instead of the 12 per cent interest which he is required to pay at present. This new sanction, it is expected, will help to discourage the irregular handling of estate property.

Clause 48: Executors are also being empowered now for the first time to enter into settlements with the creditors of the estate, whether by way of partial remission of the debt or by way of postponement of payment. If, however, the amount of the debt in question exceeds R200, the executor can only act in this connection with the Master’s authority. In other words, he has a discretion in respect of small amounts, but he has no such discretion when the amount exceeds R200.

Clause 49: A provision similar to that contained in Section 82 (7) of the Insolvency Act, which prevents the executor and certain of his associates and persons with whom he has certain business connections to buy in property in the estate, except with the permission of the Master, is being re-enacted in Clause 49. The provision in question is designed to eliminate malpractices. The clause also introduces an entirely new principle by permission of the Master, to buy on behalf of the estate any property mortgaged in giving authority to the executor, subject to the favour of the deceased or pledged to him. This measure, it is anticipated, will obviate the possibility that estates will suffer losses as the result of forced sales. If it does have that effect then one will be very grateful, because hon. members are aware that many estates have suffered a great deal as a result of circumstances which sometimes prevail on the day of the auction, circumstances which prevent a large attendance at the auction, or which prevent the realization of a price which reflects the true market value.

Clause 54: In pursuance of Section 59 of the Insolvency Act, provision is now also being made that an executor who is relieved of his post by the court may be declared unfit to occupy the post of executor during his lifetime, or during such period as the court may determine. Action in terms of the relevant provisions will obviate the appointment, again and again, of unfit persons as executors. We have all had experience in this regard as well.

Clauses 57 to 70: The provisions of Chapter III of the Bill dealing with the administration of trusts are largely new provisions. As things stand to-day, property which has to be administered in favour of a beneficiary is handed over to the administrator and he can then exercise almost arbitrary control over the property. Malpractices occur from time to time in the administration of trusts and interested parties are practically powerless to intervene in view of the fact that it is an expensive if not impossible undertaking to gather the necessary facts and to appeal to the court to intervene. The existing legal provisions in this connection are entirely inadequate and it is necessary therefore to tighten the control over the administration of trusts. Provision is now being made, therefore, that in those cases where the testator or donor dies after the date on which Chapter III comes into operation the administration of property which is placed under the control of a person by will or by written instrument operating, inter vivas, to be administered for the benefit of another person, can only be administered in terms of letters of administratorship and in terms of the provisions of the chapter referred to. The procedures laid down in the chapter, except for essential adjustments, are more or less the same as those which operate in the case of the administration of deceased estates.

The Master, however, is not being empowered, as in the case of deceased estates, to appoint an administrator summarily if the value of the estate is not less than R600 and the order of preference in the case of competition for the office of administrator differs from that which applies to executors. Moreover an administrator who is the parent, child or surviving spouse of the testator or donor is not exempted, as in the case of executors, from furnishing security. The Master’s control over the administration of trust property is being tightened up in Clause 65 by granting him the powers which are necessary for this purpose. The interests of minors in the income derived from trust property, etc., are adequately protected by the furnishing of security in those cases where the minor’s natural guardian is entitled to receive such income, etc., on his behalf. Moreover, the liability of administrators in those cases where they make a wrong distribution, are now set out specifically. Provision is also being made that the administration of existing trusts may in certain cases be placed under the Master’s control.

Clauses 71 to 85: The provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Bill with regard to guardians and curators correspond substantially with the existing legal provisions in this connection, but they have been adapted, where necessary, on the basis of the provisions which apply in similar cases in respect of deceased estates. An important exception, however, is that a parent appointed as guardian or curator of his minor child by will or instrument drawn up after the date on which the proposed Act comes into operation, shall furnish security unless he has been exempted from doing so by will or other valid instrument. The Master’s power to grant permission for the alienation or encumbrance of the immovable property of a minor is being extended to cases where the value of property does not exceed R4,000, instead of R600 as at present. This change is necessitated by the reduced purchasing power of the monetary unit and the high costs involved in applying to court for the necessary permission.

In Clause 90 the Master is also being empowered to grant permission that money which stands to the credit of a minor in the guardian’s fund may be used in payment of his debts, to meet the costs of maintaining his property and the running expenses of his business, provided the total of such payments does not exceed R4,000. In this way the money of the minor can be spent usefully in his own interests.

The Master’s power to agree to the subdivision of a minor’s immovable property is being extended in Clause 94 so as to include consent to any exchange of property, payment of money or mortgage incidental to the subdivision. These additional powers will eliminate quite a number of problems which are being encountered at present and will bring about a saving of costs.

The existing legal provisions which forbid a deceased spouse in certain cases to re-marry unless he furnishes security for the shares of the minor children of his deceased spouse, are being retained in Clause 105 in those cases where the deceased spouse dies before the date on which the proposed Act comes into operation, since the shares of such minors could otherwise be unprotected. If he dies subsequently, then, of course, he is covered by the provisions of this Act.

In brief, Mr. Speaker, these are the most important provisions of this Bill, a Bill with regard to which consultations have taken place over a wide field and which has the blessing of the various law societies.

This is a very important Bill. It deals with a subject of very great importance and it takes the place of legislation which, I believe, all members of this House believe has served a very good purpose but which clearly has been in need of revision. The Bill being one of very great importance we are very glad that the hon. the Minister has given us such a careful review. I understand he has agreed that a White Paper be made available to all hon. members of this House. It is obvious that in view of that White Paper which will require a great deal of detailed study, it is far better that we do not continue with this debate. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has agreed to the adjournment of the debate. It will enable us all to make a very careful study of the Bill and see if we can put on the Statute Book a measure which might exceed in its period of operation the 50 years which the present measure has covered on the Statute Book. In those circumstances, Sir, I move—

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to; debate adjourned.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The existing legal provisions in regard to the law of evidence in civil cases are contained in a series of Acts, some of which date from the year 1830 and which are, apart from that, available only in one of the official languages. In addition, these Acts also contain numerous references to the British Supreme Court which, since we have a republican form of government, are no longer suitable in our legislation. The judiciary and other bodies have been urging for some time now that the relevant legal provisions should be synopsized and brought up to date in order to make them more easily accessible. This request of the relevant bodies is now being acceded to in this Bill.

The judiciary, the Bar, the Side-Bar, Attorneys-General and magistrates in the larger centres and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development have all been consulted in regard to this Bill. Those consulted generally support the Bill, and the comments received from them has been considered and the suggested improvements, wherever practicable, have been embodied in the Bill. Some of the bodies consulted, although they supported the measure, suggested that this was now a suitable time to undertake the codification of our law of evidence. By codification is usually meant a legislative act in which the legislator prescribes what the law is. Stated differently, codification is a succinct and systematic recording of the prevailing rules to which statutory authority is granted in a country. Codification as such is not only aimed at making the law more easily accessible, but is mainly aimed at eliminating legal uncertainty.

For more than half a century now there has been a serious difference of opinion among lawyers in South Africa in regard to the desirability of codifying our law. Judging by the result of a vote taken during a symposium on this subject on 17 September 1960 at the University of Pretoria, general opinion is, however, strongly opposed to codification. It is perhaps as well to mention the reasons for this opposition on this occasion. The first is that codification does not necessarily lead to certainty in regard to the law because in the course of time, through application and interpretation, a mass of law develops around a code, which completely overgrows and overshadows the law. We can all understand that this must be so. Secondly, it is because important legal problems generally cannot be regulated by the legislator because legislation does not lend itself to such a task. When one passes legislation, it is almost impossible to foresee everything that may take place. Thirdly, the legislator cannot possibly cover the whole sphere and prescribe rules for every situation which may arise in practice. Fourthly, codification may lead to literalism or to ignoring the most important part of the law, viz. that which is not in the Statute Book; and, lastly, codification does not simplify the law or make it easily accessible to the man in the street.

These reasons that were advanced in fact relate to the codification of the law in general, but apply equally to the codification of a section of our law which has so many branches as the law of evidence has. Hon. members will agree with me that our law of evidence consists more of common sense than of anything else, and the law of evidence therefore, from the nature of the matter, easily grows from one case to another. Apart from other considerations, codification of the law of evidence is undoubtedly an onerous task which will probably take several years. The German Bürgerliches Gestzbuch, for example, took 22 years, and kept four commissions and numerous lawyers busy. Although the codification of our law of evidence will probably not be as onerous as the codification of the German law, we nevertheless do not have the staff available to tackle such a huge task. In any case it is doubtful whether the codification of only part of the law will be beneficial.

The measure now before the House is, apart from the omission of some provisions and the insertion of others, mainly a summary of the existing legal provisions dealing with the law of evidence. Hon. members will find numerous clauses which are just a restatement of our law of evidence as it was contained in different Acts from time to time. Provisions affecting the privilege of professional consultants, like advocates and attorneys, questions in regard to adultery and certain sexual acts which cannot be put to a witness, the best evidence rule, the hearsay rule, the evidence of absent or deceased witnesses, evidence as to reputation, the corroboration of evidence in cases where there was a breach of a promise of marriage and evidence in regard to appointment to an official post have not been expressly restated in this Bill because these matters are really governed in this country by the British law of evidence which in terms of Clause 41 is retained and will therefore continue to be applied in our courts. For that reason Clause 41 is actually the crux of this Bill. An express reference to the British law was, however, avoided in Clause 41, because such reference, as I have already indicated, will not be apt in the present circumstances in our legislation. Hon. members will therefore see that what is really contained in Clause 41 reads as follows—

In other words, we are here creating a common law for ourselves in so far as the law of evidence is concerned, and that common law is the law which applied until 30 May 1961.

I want to refer hon. members to several new provisions. Provisions which are now for the first time expressly being introduced in our law of evidence in civil cases are (a) those contained in Clause 6 in regard to proof of the signature of a public official. I need not explain that, because it speaks for itself; (b) those contained in Clause 19 in so far as it provides that an original (official) document may be produced only on the order of the Head of the Department concerned or somebody authorized by him to do so. It is obvious that this should be the position in order to maintain good order and discipline in any office; (c) those contained in Clause 22 concerning the proof of certain facts by way of affidavit. Hon. members will notice that it is not the tendency in this country, but it is the tendency all over the world to submit to the court certain formal evidence by way of affidavit, because it just leads to unnecessary expense and other inconvenience to bring such person to court in respect of formal matters. The relevant provisions are respectively similar to those contained in Sections 253, 262 and 239 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, and can advantageously be used in civil matters. In regard to the production of original documents it may be mentioned that just lately considerable inconvenience has been experienced as the result of parties demanding the production of original documents, as e.g. the record of proceedings in criminal actions arising out of motor accidents because they do not wish to incur the cost or to go to the trouble to obtain copies of those proceedings. Officers in the employ of the State must often at short notice go to hand in these documents in court and have to spend long hours waiting in court for this purpose. This practice disrupts the administration of the State’s offices. Copies of such documents are easily obtainable and are admissible in civil cases. Original documents are actually necessary only in very exceptional cases. There is therefore no reason why the work of Government offices should be disrupted in this way. The new provisions will ensure that the right to demand original documents will be limited to those cases where original documents are actually essential.

The provision in regard to the proof of certain facts by way of affidavit was asked for by the General Bar Council, and can usefully be employed to submit to a court evidence which is normally of a formal nature, and to shorten the proceedings in court. It will be noticed that Clause 32 (3) grants the court the power, in certain circumstances, where a witness has given evidence by way of affidavit, nevertheless to subpoena that witness to appear in court or to instruct that questions be put to him. That is done in order to ensure the presence of such a witness for purposes of cross-examination in cases where the interests of the parties concerned in the case require it. The provisions of Clause 22 will certainly assist in lowering the costs of litigation.

Hon. members will note that this was asked for by the General Bar Council in the spirit prevailing among both advocates and attorneys to keep the costs of litigation as low as possible as far as they can. It is not only in this case that we try to achieve this objective, but I can indicate many instances to show hon. members that legal practitioners are willing to co-operate in an attempt to keep the costs of litigation as low as possible.

Normally the payment of fees for copies of public or official documents is regulated by the rules of court, but cases may occur where these rules do not apply. In such cases the Minister of Justice will now be able to prescribe such a tariff of fees, after consultation with the Minister of Finance, in terms of Clauses 18 (2) or 20 (3). The relevant provisions are therefore only there as a safeguard in case the rules do not provide for it.

The law of evidence of the Republic is not wholly contained in our statute law. In those cases where our statute law is silent, the British law of evidence as applied by the courts in the Republic will apply. This source of our law of evidence is being retained in Clause 41 which, as I have said, contains the spirit of this whole Bill, by providing that the law of evidence which applied in respect of civil matters on 30 May 1961 (the day before we became a Republic), will apply in any case for which this Bill or another Act does not make provision. In this way a direct reference to the British law of evidence is also avoided. The provisions of this clause in particular were discussed with the Chief Justice and are, as far as can be ascertained, in accordance with his wishes.

The Administration of South West Africa and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development have agreed that this Bill should be applied respectively in that territory and in the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. The provisions of this Bill, although they contain no direct reference to the Rehoboth territory, will apply also in that territory in civil matters in which mainly litigants who are not citizens of that territory or Bantu are concerned, in view of the fact that that territory is situated in South West Africa. In cases in which the citizens of that territory or Bantu are concerned, normally rules which are less advanced will apply.

The amendment contained in the Schedule is necessary because the relevant provisions apply to both civil and criminal cases and the matters regulated by it, in so far as civil cases are concerned, are now regulated by the provisions of this Bill. The effect of these amendments is that the relevant provisions mentioned in the Schedule will now apply in criminal cases only. The amendment of Section 261 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, is made only to bring the provisions of that section into line with those of Clauses 18 (2) and 20 (3). The legal provisions mentioned in the Schedule, which are now being repealed, will become redundant as soon as this Bill is passed and comes into operation. Those, briefly, are the provisions of the Bill which will be of great benefit, I believe, to our legal system, and I think that the House would be doing our administration of justice a favour by passing this Bill.

The hon. Minister said that there are some doubts about the wisdom of a measure such as this which is introducing a number of changes into our law. There is also a school of thought which believes that it would be advisable that the whole of our law in respect of the matter dealt with in this Bill should be codified. We on this side have a great deal of sympathy with one point made by the hon. Minister. He stated that the legislation which it is proposed to repeal—there is a list which in its length is exceeded in few Bills which I have seen before this Chamber, legislation going right back to 1830—is not readily available in print outside the big centres. I believe that all this legislation is readily available in most of the big centres of the country, and it is available in many libraries in the outlying areas, but I doubt whether outside the bigger centres it is possible for a practitioner if he wishes to do so to make himself aware of the full provisions which are listed in the Schedule to this Bill. Sir, there is very considerable substance in the point the hon. Minister made that the bulk of these old pieces of legislation are not available in Afrikaans at all. At the same time we have very great respect for those who have expressed these doubts about the wisdom of legislating and we believe that this is a measure which should be very, very carefully considered in this House, particularly in Committee. Sir, it should not be rushed through this House—I believe that many of the persons interested have not really as yet had the opportunity of fully considering the effects of some of the provisions proposed, particularly where there are amendments of the common law. And even in codifying it is so easy—as it is the written word which holds—to introduce amendments into the law as it stands without realizing that that is being done.

This therefore is a measure which should have very careful consideration not only during the second reading, but particularly at the Committee Stage, and I would appeal that there should be no time during the course of this Bill when it is rushed in any way. It will be to the advantage of all if its passage through this House is extended over a considerable period in order that this House will be able when it is finally passed to feel sure that those who will be affected by this Bill, basically the legal profession and the Bench, will have the most ample opportunity of considering the measure with a view to making any suggestions which they may deem necessary to the Minister and to this House.

If of course the measure proves as successful as the hon. Minister hopes it will be if passed into law, and we share that hope, then it will be an important legislative measure. But the hon. the Minister has said that our law is a growing system, and there is much force in the view that one must be very careful in respect of aspects of the law such as those covered by these provisions, to make sure that one is not restricting that growth. Sir, the measure is comprehensive in respect of the matter which it covers, and I hope the Minister will agree that its passage will extend over some period in order that we can be quite sure that all the various persons and institutions which are so deeply concerned to preserve our legal system, will have had every opportunity of making suggestions, even at this stage and notwithstanding the fact that there has already been wide consultation, as the hon. Minister has said.

This is a very comprehensive measure. I understand that it will not be opposed by any party in this House, and as a Government measure I must vote for it. But I do want to take this opportunity to express my doubts about certain aspects of this measure, particularly the aspect contained in Clause 41 which, as the Minister has said, is the crux of the whole Bill. I have great doubts about this particular clause because it fixes the date 30 May 1961, the day before we became a Republic, but since that time the law of evidence has developed; it has not stood still and the British law of evidence has applied in South Africa since 1961 also; nor has it stood still in Britain. It has grown and certain decisions were given in our courts on the basis of decisions given in Britain since 1961. Now it is very difficult for any practitioner to determine which of those decisions were not based on decisions given in Britain since 1961. I want to say that particularly this portion of our law lent itself par excellence to codification, if there is in fact a part of the law which can be codified. The arguments advanced in 1961 by the experts in Pretoria really do not apply to this measure because the law has grown here, and if it has grown since 1961 we cannot now say that there was no growth since 1961. There should be a clearer indication. Take e.g. an ordinary attorney in Prieska. How will he now know precisely what part of Stephen or of Phipson, to quote the English authorities on the law of evidence, no longer applies since 1961 because there was a decision in the British courts given in, say, 1961 to the effect that this rule laid down by Phipson has since been changed and is now being applied in the British courts in that way and is followed by our courts because, as it was applied in England, so it has been applied here also, even after 1961. Therefore I have much doubt in this regard. One cannot in this way, just by saying that the English law as such no longer applies in South Africa (simply by not mentioning the name) while still saving that since 1961 the law of evidence of England is still being applied here, think that we have now codified the law very nicely or that we have incorporated the law in South Africa. I do not think that is the right mode of action, and therefore I want to express my doubts in this regard.

I think the time has arrived when at some time or other we shall have to appoint a commission thoroughly to investigate our law of evidence, and that we shall in fact have to codify it. We received it in bits and pieces. And it should not be thought that the British law of evidence is the beginning and the end of everything. There are very many sound rules in the law of evidence of the Continental systems which we can fruitfully take over. I want to mention one example in connection with which it was indicated in our legislation time and again in recent years that this should be the position, viz. the question of the burden of proof. Time and again, in connection with every particular provision in our Acts, we have to provide that the burden of proof will rest on the accused. There is a rule in the continental systems that the onus of proof rests on the accused person, and it is high time for us at some time or other to come to a decision in regard to that principle, and I think it is high time that in regard to that matter we should also look at other legal systems, apart from the British one, in regard to the onus of proof. I know, e.g., that Holland has codified its law in regard to the onus of proof. It is a very sound bit of work, and we can fruitfully study it and take over much of it. It is not necessary for us in this way, just by way of reference, to write the British law into our law in this way and then leave a vacuum from 1961 until to-day. That cannot be tolerated because we do not know where we stand now. It creates a great measure of legal uncertainty. That is why I have risen to express my doubts in regard to this clause. I take it that the Minister would like to put our method of proving things on a sounder basis than it is at the moment, and therefore he has introduced this Bill. This makes a good start, but I want to express the hope that it will not end here, and that this will be developed further, and that measures will be adopted to make our law of evidence more accessible to the ordinary practitioner in some way, without his having to do a lot of research. As the position is now, it means that one must always have a large number of English decisions available, something which the ordinary practitioner, particularly on the platteland, never has available. He must then rely on decisions in our courts and on the Prentice Hall and other reports, because the ordinary reports of our courts are not easily accessible to many of them either. It is therefore a difficult system as it stands now, and it is high time that the law of evidence should be amended. The attorney has to make use of the law of evidence in connection with every case he takes to court. It is not like an ordinary legal principle of the material law where one can say that one can argue on it as one thinks it is according to some textbook; but the rules of evidence must be applied in every case and in connection with every shred of evidence given there, and they should be absolutely accessible to the legal practitioner. Unless those rules are freely accessible they will not be applied properly, and we shall fare much better if they are made accessible in the form of a code.

I want to say at once that the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) has raised a very valid point so far as Clause 41 of this Bill is concerned which provides that the law of evidence as it existed at the time when we became a Republic, where not dealt with by this Act, shall remain the law. The hon. member for Heilbron asked the question how a practitioner in Prieska could possibly say what part of Phipson, or whatever authority it may be, was in fact in operation in 1961? I think the point the hon. member for Heilbron made was an important one and one that deserves the attention of the hon. Minister’s department so far as codification of our law in this regard is concerned. We find ourselves to-day in a most extraordinary position. Our law of evidence is the law which obtained in the Supreme Court of Judicature in the United Kingdom, and where our reports were silent on the question, we looked at the English reports and to-day we still look at the English reports and they are the law in regard to those matters not dealt with by this Bill up to this date in 1961. But the practitioner has an even greater difficulty, and this difficulty is that even if there are decisions after 1961, the practitioner must assume that in the ordinary courts of the land, if the court is not the Appellate Division, or the Highest Court in the land, the statement of the law is a statement of the law as it has always been. It is not one of the functions of our courts to change the law. The Appellate Division is entitled to change the law in that it is entitled to say that a decision given by it before was incorrect and it can change its own decision. But that is the only court that can do so. So far as the other courts are concerned it is their duty merely to interpret the law, merely to state what the law is. Therefore, Sir, I myself have misgivings about a Bill of this sort, not because it does not state what the law is, not because it does not accurately, particularly in Part II of the Bill, state the law—I think it is a very good codification of those aspects of the law which it deals with, but it does not deal with all the aspects of the law, and there are some aspects of our law, not statutory matters, which may, in certain circumstances, conflict with the statutory provisions we have here. The difficulty raised by the hon. member for Germiston-District (Mr. Tucker) is a very real difficulty. I appreciate that all the old statutes which are being repealed or amended and reenacted must be so dealt with, because a lot of them are not available in both languages, and indeed a lot are not available to the practitioner in any form at all, particularly in the country areas. You can’t get these old statutes, you can’t even get them in some of the bigger centres of the Republic. But I hope the hon. Minister will give his consideration to the question as to whether it is desirable to half-codify the law, whether it is desirable in view of the confusion which already exists, as indicated by the speech of the hon. member for Heilbron and by reason of the very fact that we have codified some of our law, but have not felt it necessary to codify other aspects of our law, whether the hon. Minister will not reconsider the wisdom of proceeding at this stage with this Bill in principle. Not that there is anything wrong with it, but merely because if we are going to codify, let us make a good job of it.

The hon. the Minister in introducing this Bill mentioned certain aspects of the Bill relating to the reduction of the costs of litigation. I am sure everyone, the public and the profession and the Bench is anxious to do what it can to reduce the costs of litigation where this is possible.

I am very disappointed to note that Clause 22 of the Bill which provides for “proof of certain facts by affidavit” does not seem to go as far as it could in the reduction of the cost of litigation. I say so for this reason: Some time ago, I think in 1962, we passed the Evidence Act and we made provision for the admissibility of documentary evidence made not for the purpose of litigation. I want to suggest to the hon. Minister, and I do it at this stage, rather than at the Committee Stage, so that the hon. Minister can give his thoughts to it before that time, that we should provide for the admission of documentary evidence for the purpose of litigation. Clause 22 provides for the admission as evidence of affidavits made by certain persons skilled in biology, bacteriology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, anatomy, and so on, which follows, as the hon. Minister has indicated, Section 239 of the Criminal Code.

Do you want to make the list longer?

I do not want to make the list any longer. It follows the traditions of the code, perhaps too strenuously, because the affidavit can only be admitted if it says that “he is in the service of the Republic or of a province, including the Administration of South-West Africa, or attached to the South African Institute for Medical Research or any university in the Republic”. Now, Sir, private practitioners, it seems to me, should also be allowed to make affidavits of this sort. You see, Sir, let us take the accident cases there are, claims in terms of the Motor-Vehicle Insurance Act. As the hon. Minister is aware one finds in these cases that each side, if the case is contested, will bring several expert witnesses. I have not heard of a medical expert witness who will appear for less than 50 guineas a day, and very often there are three or four or more of these experts. In fact, 50 guineas is a very fair estimate. Now all these people do is to say that they have drawn up a report, that they have examined the patient, and then they give evidence in relation to that report. I would like to see such a person making an affidavit in relation to his report as he does when he is a person employed by the State who makes such an affidavit in connection with his report and puts it in. I think the result of this would be, if both sides were to do this, and I would go so far as to make it compulsory, that you would need one witness only on each side, one expert witness who would examine the evidence which has been put before him and before the court, and I think the parties could save an awful lot of money in this regard. I mention it at this stage so that the hon. the Minister can give his attention to it before we come to the Committee Stage.

The other important aspect of this is that it will allow hospital doctors for example, many of whom around the country, to give their evidence which in almost all instances is undisputed, as to the state of the patient when he came into the hospital, the condition in which he found him, and the treatment which he gave him and other matters which it might be necessary for him to do, to submit an affidavit.

Yes, I see that.

I am glad the hon. Minister has taken notice of that point and I hope he will give it his attention. The question still remains: Is this Bill really necessary in regard to its codification at this stage? Would it not be better for the Bill to stand over to a time when we can codify all of our law? I foresee all sorts of difficulties which could arise in relation to an half-codification of our law. I suppose one should not complain. Probably it was in Gilbert and Sullivan in “Trial by Jury” that it was said—

While that is not something about which I should not, like little Alice’s parents, have cause to complain; it is a matter to which I think the hon. Minister should give his serious attention.

Just for the sake of the record I want to raise my voice against the hon. members for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and Durban-North (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), who pleaded for codification. I am one of those who strongly believe that codifying leads to limitation and that the development of the law becomes stunted. Therefore I am very glad that the Minister said that he was not thinking of codification at this stage. I am saying this just for the sake of the record so that the House and the country may know that there are people who differ from the two speakers who spoke just before me.

The hon. member for Durban-North, when I asked him whether he wanted to extend the list of people with special knowledge from whom sworn affidavits could be obtained in terms of Clause 22, said that he did not want to extend the list. But having listened to his plea it appears that in fact he wants to extend this list. I do not know what the Minister’s object is. Evidently he is quite well disposed towards the matter raised by the hon. member for Durban-North, but I should like to issue a warning against it. It may be true that it is advisable, for the sake of costs, to prove certain facts by means of affidavit, but I think it would be much better for this matter to be dealt with by agreement between the parties than for it to be left to be dealt with by an Act of Parliament. It may well be that somebody has an opinion which he prefers to divulge later rather than sooner. If the hon. member for Durban-North has a point here I think it would be better for us to amend not the law of evidence but the law of procedure. I should like him to consider that.

Then it appears to me, after having listened to the hon. member for Durban-North, that he does not really appreciate the object of Clause 22, and he will forgive me for saying so. The Minister stated very clearly that this clause was being introduced on the one hand to save costs and on the other hand in order not to disrupt the work of State Departments; and that is a very important consideration. But now, with his plea, he wants to sail under the Minister’s flag: he wants to use the disruption of the Departments also in order to save costs in another sphere, and I do not think that this is quite correct or advisable, but we can discuss this matter in the Committee Stage.

Then I come to Clause 41. The Minister says this is the crux of the whole matter. I have no objection to us referring to the British law of evidence as a source from which we can draw if we do not have an example ourselves. I should prefer to find a solution myself, but no man can evolve something which fits all cases. However, I have no objection to the fact that history has made the English law of evidence our law of evidence also. Therefore I do not have the same objection that the hon. member for Heilbron has, nor have I any objection to the wording of the clause as it stands because we find a similar section in every single one of the various Acts which were passed here and are now being synopsised. It is just a matter of different dates, and the fact that the English law of evidence has developed after that date makes no difference to us. [Interjection.] But what about the decisions as the hon. member for Heilbron has said, given in England after 1961 and which have been adopted by our courts? Surely the decisions adopted by our courts become our decisions and then constitute South African law. It has an English derivation, but we should not blame the law for having an English derivation. The moment our courts adopt it, it becomes South African law. It has already happened that the South African interpretation of a rule, or the construction put on an English precedent, is different from the construction put on it in England. Therefore I do not know how I should word this clause if I were to comply with the wishes of the hon. members for Durban-North and Heilbron. I can quite understand that it should be worded in the way it is at present. When there is no provision in the South African statute law or in our judgments at all, we can look at the English law as it existed on 30 May 1961, the day before we became a Republic, and I think that was a very suitable date to choose. It also places the duty on all legal practitioners to start (there and then to do their own thinking), and instead of looking to the English precedents, to erect their own superstructure from that stage. Other legal practitioners and I are grateful to the Minister for affording us this opportunity, just as I am grateful to all the other Ministers of Justice and Attorneys-General—some of whom have sat in this House—who made that rule. It has given the South African legal practitioner the opportunity to do his own thinking and to erect his own superstructure. I am very glad that this is so.

I still want to pass one final remark. I am very grateful, and I think many legal practitioners will also be grateful, that the Minister has tackled this matter, because now at least we find information in a few pages which otherwise we would have had to search for in books which were not available or which could only be acquired with great difficulty.

Mr. Speaker, I think I would be summing up the reactions of hon. members correctly if I said that there was no objection to the second reading. There are in fact doubts in the minds of some hon. members as to whether we are in fact going far enough. I explained to hon. members to the best of my ability why it is impossible, firstly, to codify, apart from the fact that there is a serious quarrel among lawyers as to whether it is desirable to codify. Until such time as that quarrel has been resolved, we would just be wasting our time if we proceeded to codify; and in addition, if one wants to codify one must ensure that one has available the services of people who can do the work, and at this stage my information is that we do not have the necessary staff available. For myself, I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Standerton (Dr. Coertze) that it is not desirable to codify, for the sound reasons he advanced. I am also grateful to the hon. member for his explanation in regard to Clause 41. It is true, as the hon. member stated, that some date had to be fixed, and the obvious date was 30 May 1961. In this regard I can give the hon. members for Heilbron and Durban (North) and Germiston (District) the assurance that we have had very thorough consultations in regard to that date and the consequences which may flow from it, inter alia with the Chief Justice, and all the people whom we consulted agreed that in practice it would give rise to no problems at all. Particularly will it not give rise to problems, as the hon. member for Standerton correctly pointed out, because the moment decisions by the British courts were adopted by our courts after that date, they became decisions of our courts and became an inseparable part of our law. Those decisions will not be negatived as part of our law if we now pass this Bill; they remain part of our law.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) raised a point in regard to Clause 22. I told the hon. member that I could quite understand his point. That point was also argued with the persons with whom we consulted. I am not precisely au fait at the moment with what the arguments pro or con were. All I intimated to the hon. member was that I understood the point he wanted to make, but that does not mean that I necessarily subscribe to it. I see what he means and I shall take up the matter further with the law advisers, and when we get to the Committee Stage I am sure I shall be able to give him a reply. The hon. member also asked whether it was necessary to half-codify now. I do not think one can describe this Bill as a half-codification of our law of evidence. I think one can at the most describe it as a Bill giving general guidance, without there being any talk of codification. The fact remains that our law of evidence is to a large extent not contained in statutory provisions; the major part of it is common law, and British common law, which just like the Roman-Dutch Law in respect of other branches of our law has now become part of our common law; and we preserve that heritage except in so far as we have amended it by statute from time to time, and we are also perpetuating it by the provision that this will be our law as at 30 May 1961. Nevertheless, I am grateful to hon. members for the points they raised, and as lawyers I think we can have a very fruitful discussion in the Committee Stage. I move.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr. Speaker, for some years already repeated complaints have been received from various sources about the alleged maladministration of insolvent estates. The most general complaint seems to be that appreciable amounts of money which should normally be available for distribution among the creditors disappear in the process of administering the estate. And when one talks about insolvency, there are two aspects of it which should be borne in mind. The one is the insolvency of companies and the other the insolvency of individuals. This Bill deals more particularly with the insolvency of individuals, and I shall tell hon. members why that is so. It is for the simple reason that at the moment we have a commission investigating the Companies Act. That commission will consequently study the Companies Act and also the insolvency of companies, and hon. members will agree that the Companies Act should be tightened up. The Commission will also devote attention to the insolvency of companies and try to close the loopholes existing in those Acts. I therefore do not want to anticipate the report of that commission. Of course, this Bill also deals with the insolvency of companies, but I am just referring to that commission which has to submit its report.

Excessively expensive investigations into the insolvent’s affairs, the injudicious institution of legal action by the curator and the unprofitable carrying on of the insolvent’s business by the trustee seem to be the main causes for this state of affairs. In fact, cases are known where the costs connected with such investigations, actions, etc. have eventually completely exhausted the assets in the insolvent estate, with the result that the creditors have had to contribute towards the administration costs. A thorough investigation of the whole matter which lasted a long time, and during which wide consultation took place, brought to light various defects in the Insolvency Act, but it brought particularly one aspect very clearly to the fore, namely the practice which has arisen during the course of time by which a trustee or prospective trustee gets powers of attorney from the creditors to vote on their behalf at meetings of creditors. In some areas it has become a fairly common phenomena that the trustee or prospective trustee, armed with powers of attorney which he has obtained from creditors by touting, nominates himself as the trustee at meetings of creditors where his is often the only voice heard on behalf of the creditors, and votes for his own appointment as trustee, or in fact instructs himself as to how the estate should be realized and distributed on behalf of the creditors, and approves of his own actions.

It does not require much imagination to realize what an untenable position can arise in cases where the personal interests of the trustee, or his interests as trustee, come into conflict with his interests as the agent for creditors or of a particular creditor. It is therefore not surprising that malpractices arise and flourish in such a fertile breeding-ground.

Although it is not expressly provided in the Insolvency Act, it may safely be accepted that it was never the intention of the Act that a trustee should act as the agent of the creditors. On the contrary, the whole spirit of the Act is that the trustee should realize the estate and distribute the proceeds in the way the creditors consider to be in their best interest. The concession granted to them to implement their wishes by means of an authorized person was never intended to put the trustee in a position of power where he could administer the estate as he wished. The fact that some trustees, in spite of their powers of attorney, realize the assets in the estates they administer and distribute them in the best interests of the creditors does not alter the unacceptability of a principle which leaves the door wide open to irregularities. The position is that the curator has to receive his instructions from the creditors and he cannot do what he likes, as unfortunately now happens in practice.

In order to combat this undesirable state of affairs which has arisen in practice, provision is now made in Clause 12 of the Bill that a creditor may not vote for an authorized person who is the trustee of the estate or a person nominated for election as trustee, or who has a certain family or business connection with such trustee or person. This provision will not unduly inconvenience creditors, particularly when it is borne in mind that the practice of granting powers of attorney to trustees to vote on behalf of creditors prevails in certain centres only.

Because the financial position even of sureties varies from time to time, it is essential that the guarantee given when application is made for the sequestration of the insolvent’s estate must be of recent date. In addition, it sometimes happens that a magistrate, as well as the Master, issues the surety certificate required in terms of Section 9 (3). That causes confusion, and in view of the fact that the application for sequestration must in any case be made in the Supreme Court, the necessary certificate might as well in all cases be obtained from the Master. Clause 2 contains the necessary amendments in this respect.

In terms of Section 21 the assets of the insolvent’s spouse are also handed over to the trustee on the sequestration of the insolvent estate. No provision, however, exists for the service of the sequestration order on the spouse of the insolvent, nor for the provision by the latter of a schedule of assets, with the result that there is no satisfactory way of ascertaining which assets belong to the insolvent and which to his spouse. This creates a golden opportunity for irregularly disposing of some of the insolvent’s assets. Quite a number of problems are also being experienced in the implementation of the provisions compelling the insolvent to hand over to the deputy sheriff the documents referring to his affairs. The law, for example, makes no provision for the noting of the documents handed over to the deputy sheriff. In Clause 4 provision is now being made which will remedy the defects which existed in Section 16.

The provisions in regard to the handing over to the deputy sheriff of all the insolvent’s books and documents referring to his affairs are further tightened up in Clause 5 by providing that a specified list of such books and documents must be drawn up and that any explanation the insolvent may give in that regard should be noted. The presumption is also created that the books and documents thus handed over by the insolvent are deemed to be the only books and documents kept by him in regard to his affairs if on such handing over he indicates that the aforementioned list is a complete list of the books and documents relating to his affairs. These provisions will prevent the insolvent from evading legitimate punishment for his failure to keep proper books. Hon. members are aware how often that now happens in practice.

The provisions in regard to voidable preferences are extended in Clause 6 also to include in the provisions of Section 29 the alienation of the insolvent’s assets six months before his death, if it appears after his death that his estate is insolvent.

The details which a trustee must send to a creditor who registered his name and address with him are extended in Clause 8 by also including notices of the sale of property on which the creditor may have a preferent right.

The way in which claims against the estate have to be proved is being somewhat changed in Clause 9 by providing that a creditor must value any securities other than movable property which he has realized, and that a specified account showing the purchases and payments for the full trading period or for a period of 12 months, whichever is the shorter, must be submitted, instead of the existing useless provision which requires that an account in respect of transactions entered into before the date of sequestration should be sent to the insolvent at intervals of three months.

Clause 12 now gives creditors the right to instruct the trustee to appoint or not to appoint a particular attorney or auctioneer, and the trustee can submit their instruction to the Master for review if he is of the opinion that it is not in the interest of the estate to carry out those instructions. The intention of the Act is that the estate should be administered in the way deemed necessary by the creditors, and there is no sound reason why they cannot issue instructions in this regard.

In order to ensure that the trustee will as far as possible be an impartial person, it is now provided in Clause 13 that nobody who within 12 months before the sequestration of the insolvent’s estate acted as the bookkeeper, accountant or auditor of the insolvent, or who is authorized to vote on behalf of a creditor, can be elected as trustee.

Experience has taught us that the discretionary powers at present granted by Section 56 to co-trustees and the Master cannot be effectively applied. Therefore it is now provided in Clause 14 that if there is a difference of opinion between the co-trustees of an insolvent estate in regard to a matter affecting the estate, they must refer the matter to the master who has to decide the point of difference or issue instructions concerning the procedure to be followed to obtain such a decision.

In the past it often happened that an elected trustee was appointed notwithstanding serious doubts existing in regard to the desirability of his appointment. It is often difficult to obtain proof of his unsuitability for appointment as trustee, because complainants are reluctant to come forward with information, particularly when they suspect that the matter involved may possibly have repercussions in a court. In order to bridge the problems experienced in this regard, provision is now being made in Clause 15 to give the Master a wider discretion in appointing trustees. Anybody, however, who feels that the decision of the Master in this regard does him an injustice will have a right of appeal to the Minister, whose decision shall be final. I may say that there were very wide discussions between the Bar Council and myself in regard to this clause, and although the Bar Council in principle does not like this type of provision it agreed that in the circumstances it was best to leave the matter there and to see how it worked in practice. I pertinently draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that there were discussions in that regard. The Bar Council’s standpoint was that the matter should go to court instead of the dispute being referred to the Minister. The argument of creditors in that regard is particularly that they do not want to incur the costs of lengthy litigation at this primary stage, where the matter at issue is merely the appointment of the trustees and nothing else. The court will not be deprived of the right to give any other decisions, but this one affects only the initial stage, i.e. the appointment of a trustee, in regard to which lengthy litigation is now often entered into, and which takes up much time and is in fact unnecessary. But if hon. members want to argue this point further we may fruitfully do so in the Committee Stage. This new procedure will save interested parties considerable costs and appears to be acceptable to everybody who was consulted on the Bill.

As matters stand at present, a trustee can be dismissed from his office by the court on certain grounds. An application for the dismissal of a trustee can, however, lead to the expenditure of large sums of money which may seriously influence the amount of any dividend eventually paid by the estate. In addition business men are not very anxious to become involved in litigation and prefer to run the risk of suffering loss rather than to go to court to ask for the dismissal of a trustee. The power to dismiss the trustee is now granted to the Master in Clause 16, and the grounds on which it can be done are extended to cases where the trustee is the agent of a creditor, or the majority of creditors who have a vote ask for it in writing, or the trustee is, in the opinion of the Master, no longer deemed fit to be the trustee of the estate. The decision of the Master can be taken on review to the Supreme Court. Here the Minister has nothing to do with the matter. The dismissal of the trustee lies in the hands of the Master, who acts in terms of the powers granted to him in the relevant clause, and the trustee or any creditor who is dissatisfied because the Master acted in that way is free to take the matter to court.

With a view to eliminating the uncertainty which exists in connection with the matter, the method in which evidence at insolvency proceedings has to be recorded is now expressly determined by Clause 18.

The provisions which apply in terms of Sec. 66 in the case of a witness who fails to appear at insolvency proceedings are now being extended in Clause 19 to apply also to the insolvent. In other words, the obligation to do so now rests on him also, and hon. members realize how necessary that is. It means that the insolvent who fails to appear may be arrested and detained in a prison for a specified time unless he can advance sufficient reason for his delay. I think hon. members will agree with me here also that many of the irregularities and problems encountered in connection with insolvent estates in the past were due to the laxity with which the insolvent himself regarded the proceedings, and the fact that he did not co-operate as he should have done. Creditors will in future have the right, as provided in Clause 22, to be present at the taxation of cost accounts and to object to any relevant item of costs. We have had many complaints from creditors in this regard, to the effect that they have no locus standi in regard to this matter, and we now give them that right.

The duties of the trustee in respect of the submission of his report and the mention therein of contraventions committed by the insolvent are now being more clearly defined by the amendments contained in Clause 23. This is being done to remove uncertainty and to facilitate the task of the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that the trustee must in any case have knowledge of certain facts before he can judge as to whether the insolvent has committed any contravention of the law, his task is not being made more difficult, because all he is required to do is to provide the relevant facts.

The provisions of Section 82, which make it possible to ask for new tenders sometimes facilitates collusion between a trustee and prospective buyers. Clause 24 now does away with this particular provision. Clause 25 now makes it clear that the provisions of Section 83 (11) regarding the taking over by the curator of assets constituting security apply in the case of movable as well as immovable property. The amount which in terms of Section 96 can be used from the free residue to defray funeral expenses is being increased in Clause 27 from R50 to R100 at the urging of various bodies. Hon. members can accordingly have bigger and better funerals!

The provisions of Section 99 which provide for a preference from the free residue in respect of compensations are extended by Clause 28 to include contributions by an employer and of his employees which in law are payable by him to a pension fund, sick fund, medical fund, workmen’s compensation fund and holiday bonus fund, etc. It often happens that an employer does not hand over to the relevant fund the contributions he collects from his employers for such funds in terms of the law. When his estate is sequestrated the relevant funds have only a concurrent claim against the estate, as the result of which they suffer loss and their finance are endangered.

Employees in certain other instances who have assisted the insolvent in his business and in most cases could not have prevented his insolvency are generally hard hit by the sequestration of the insolvent estate, particularly in cases where they are completely dependent for their living on the wage or remuneration owing to them by the insolvent. The preference contained in Section 100 of the Act is therefore at the urging of various bodies being extended in Clause 29 to moneys owing to nurses, accountants and auditors. The maximum preference which the claims of such people and other employees mentioned in the section can enjoy is being increased from R200 to R400, and the period in respect of which such preferential payment can be made is limited to two months in all cases. It is further provided that any leave bonus accruing to an employee will also be preferential for a period not exceeding 21 days. No objection has been received to this provision from the relevant bodies consulted in regard to the matter. Until quite recently it has been the practice of trustees to provide a receipt form in regard to cheques made out to creditors in payment of dividends, which the creditor then has to receipt before he can cash the cheque. Such receipted cheques are then submitted to the Master in compliance with the legal requirement that receipts signed by creditors for dividends received must be submitted. The banks, however, have now mechanized some of their activities, as the result of which the acceptance of a cheque with a stamp (which must be put on the receipt) is no longer practicable. The experience is that creditors, particularly those who receive a very small dividend, are very lax in supplying separate receipts for the amounts received by them. It is now feared that in future the requirements of the Act in regard to the submission of receipts cannot be complied with. Therefore provision is being made in Clause 32 that the Master may, in the place of a receipt, accept a properly endorsed cheque drawn in payment of such dividends. The Chief Master is of the opinion that this provision will eliminate the anticipated problems. Clause 35 provides for the steps to be taken in case the trustee fails to carry out his duties or to comply with a reasonable demand by the Master. This provision is more or less in line with the existing provisions but is more comprehensive and expressly provides that the cost of obtaining an order of court to compel the trustee to carry out his duties, etc. are payable by the curator de bonus propriis unless the court otherwise orders.

As appears from Clause 37, in future an insolvent who applies for his rehabilitation will be required to prove that at least 50c in the Rand, instead of 37½c as at present, has been paid in respect of every claim proved against his estate. This increase becomes necessary mainly as the result of the decrease in the value of the currency.

The offence created by par. (a) of Section 138 in cases where the insolvent fails to attend a meeting of creditors is deleted by Clause 38 because an insolvent who so fails to attend will in future be subject to the provision of Clause 19. Because it is often difficult to prove that an insolvent has notified his change of address, a presumption is created in Clause 39 that he has not done so, unless he proves the contrary. This is not an unnecessary onus of proof to lay on such an insolvent. The onus of proof laid on him is not unreasonable and it should not be difficult for him to discharge it.

In order to discourage the review of the decisions or actions of the Master or an official presiding at a meeting of creditors on trivial grounds, and to prevent the wasting of the assets of the estate on trivial matters, provision is made in Clause 41 that the cost of such review should not be regarded as forming part of the sequestration costs if the decisions, etc. which are taken on review are upheld by the court. That will ensure that the person who wants to take a matter on review will make sure that he has good grounds for doing so. Those, in brief, are the provisions of this Bill in regard to which there was wide consultation.

We are grateful to the hon. the Minister for his very detailed speech in respect of the provisions of this Bill. I am sure everybody will agree that an amendment to our Insolvency Law is necessary. I think there will be wide difference of opinion as to the form the amendment should take, particularly in respect of some of the provisions. The hon. the Minister well realizes that some of the provisions here will be the subject of substantial differences of opinion in this House. I believe that the aim of all of us will be to try to get a thoroughly effective measure on the Statute Book which will eliminate many of the abuses which are known to have existed in respect of the administration of insolvent estates.

I should like to say immediately that while there have been trustees who have failed in their duty there have on the contrary been many trustees and other persons who have administered estates and carried out their duties with very great distinction and to the benefit of creditors. At the same time, Sir, nobody would suggest an amendment to our Insolvency Law is not necessary. I don’t for a moment propose to follow the hon. the Minister in dealing in detail with the various clauses. I have told him we are grateful to him for having set out the reasons why the amendments are introduced. His speech will be available to us and will be of benefit to us in studying the various provisions further. I hope there will be a substantial period before the Committee stage of this measure is taken. Only yesterday in Johannesburg I was told of certain strong objections by certain chambers of commerce to some of provisions of this Bill. I understand that representations in respect of the matter are on the way to the Minister.

I have not received them yet.

No. I know that certain persons who act as trustees are very concerned about the provision dealing with powers of attorney. Frankly, Sir, my difficulty in regard to that clause is not the position of the trustee himself but I doubt whether the proposed amendment will overcome the difficulty of touting for the administratorship of estates. This happens on a scandalous scale on many occasions. It has been quite impossible for the Department of Justice to do anything about it. I say to the hon. Minister that the Opposition realizes that it is most important that we should have a really effective insolvency law on the Statute Book. We shall do everything possible during the Committee stage to try to improve the measure and to help to ensure that our Insolvency Act is strengthened in respect of matters where there is considerable weakness at the present time.

The hon. the Minister has suggested that this Bill will considerably tighten up the insolvency law. I want to suggest to the Minister that one of the important factors to be observed is the provision by his Department of the necessary assistance. I admit there are many cases where the trustees may not have investigated the position as fully as they might have done. But I can also assure the hon. the Minister that there are many trustees who have investigated insolvent estates who have become most frustrated in finding, after having conducted a lengthy investigation, that the insolvent is not brought to book. That is due in many instances to the fact that the persons concerned are not qualified to deal with the matter. The trustee does a thorough investigation; he makes his report to the Attorney-General; the Attorney-General then arranges for the matter to be dealt with by a junior prosecutor. I am not criticizing the prosecutor, Sir. But in many cases he is not qualified to deal with complicated matters concerning the accounts. The trustee spends many long hours in court and eventually, due to the fact that the insolvent is a professional insolvent and has eminent counsel to assist him, the insolvent gets away on a technicality whereas he should have done a long stretch in gaol. I know some accountants who have had long experience of insolvency work and who, like myself, will not accept appointments as trustee in future, because not only is it not remunerative, but after they have spent many hours on investigation and eventually submit the report to the Attorney-General the departmental official you interview in the end may be a person who may be very good on stock theft, a person who may have good qualifications to detect criminals charged with assault, but who, when it comes to matters of insolvency, asks you: What is a debit and what is a credit; is it on the left-hand side or righthand side? Mr. Speaker, I have had experience of a person with that kind of qualification. I suggest that the time has arrived for the Minister to consider whether he should not have specially qualified staff to deal with these matters of commercial fraud because only then will this kind of legislation be effective. He should have on his staff accountants who have a thorough knowledge of business transactions and attorneys-general who are specially qualified to deal with commercial matters. Much of the work in business records is done by mechanical means. A deputy sheriff calls on an insolvent for the books of record and the insolvent, quite often, if he is the professional type of insolvents, palms on to the Deputy Sheriff two or three books. They look imposing to that official but the real evidence which the Deputy Sheriff needs is contained in a mass of loose leaf sheets which all form part of the record. The loose leaf sheets are there but they are all in a state of disorder.

We are providing for that.

I see that, Sir, but they are all in a state of disorder. The loose leaf proof sheets which are needed for a bookkeeping machine in order to prove the matter are not available and eventually the time taken to conduct an investigation is such that no amount of funds in the estate could pay for it. The trustee comes to the department, and even if he does make an investigation and reports to the court there is no backing for him from the State, and in consequence, Mr. Speaker, so often we are encouraging a race of professional trustees who are only concerned with mass production, getting a big turnover of insolvent estates, getting their commission on them, and there is very little or no investigation. That is a state of affairs we do not want to encourage. I have a document here which went to the Minister as far back as last June, sent by the Association of Chambers of Commerce, and this document says this—

I understand that the Chamber of Commerce in Durban is most disturbed that many of their recommendations have not been introduced into this Bill. The letter from the Association of Chambers of Commerce continues—

I suggest that the hon. Minister should give serious consideration to that suggestion where a trustee has reason to believe that there are offences, he should have assistance in his investigation from the State. In that case it is more likely that insolvents can be brought to book. I continue to read—

In making the proposal that the State should undertake and bear the cost of these investigations, we would point out that in similar instances where the public interest is involved the assumption of responsibilities by the State is presently enshrined in other legislation. Some examples are—

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the State conducts the investigation, and it seems to me that where we have a trustee appointed in an estate and he has good reason for believing that the insolvent has committed offences, and where in order to establish that he has committed an offence or offences would involve a lengthy investigation, a thorough investigation, it seems to me that to look to an estate which may have a few hundred pounds left after the insolvent has dissipated all the assets, it seems to me that the public is entitled to say to the State: This case is on all fours with an accident in a factory or an inspection of the factory, and this case is one which should be investigated by the State; in other words, the trustee should have the assistance of a trained investigator. Then the other examples—

Surely, Mr. Speaker, in such cases under the Merchandise Marks Act and the Food, Drugs and Disinfectants Act and the Weights and Measures Act, the public should have the opportunity of asking the State to give their assistance through trained investigators, and, it is not asking too much to suggest that a trained investigator should be supplied by the State.

This memorandum was sent to the hon. Minister as far back as the 22nd of June, last, and I would like to ask the Minister whether his department took cognizance of that and whether the matter has been brought to his notice and how he reacts to the suggestion that the scope of this Act should include the establishment of posts of investigators, or alternatively that his present staff should assist trustees in the investigation of insolvencies. This memorandum goes on to say this—

I suggest that the memoranda submitted by the responsible bodies such as the Associated Chambers of Commerce necessitate careful consideration.

We have considered each and every memorandum.

Then perhaps the Minister should indicate in his reply why these suggestions were not accepted. The Association still feels strongly on the matter. They felt that these were sound suggestions which merited careful attention, and I think they have put up a good case. The Minister says he has considered all these suggestions, but there is no evidence in the Bill before us that the Minister has considered the suggestions. I hope that during the course of his reply he will indicate the extent to which he has considered them and the reasons why he has turned them down. Because it is essential for us to have legislation which not only tightens up the Insolvency Act, but the Act must be administered in such a way that the insolvent who is fraudulent can be brought to court just like any other criminal.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has raised a number of matters which I cannot reply to in full in the few minutes at my disposal. Should time therefore run out on me the hon. member will just have to wait for a reply at a later stage.

The hon. member will of course know that most of his complaints and those flowing from the documents he has submitted have arisen in the past because of the fact that once a curator or trustee was appointed you could not really get rid of him. The only way in which that could be done was to go to court for an order discharging him from his office. The hon. member knows—he has dealt with a number of such cases—that you complain to the Master, other people complain, but nobody is prepared to go to court because nobody wants to incur the costs or the publicity it involves. Curators were consequently in the protected position that they know people were reluctant to go to court and they simply carried on as they pleased. We have now given complete expression to the representations made to us in this connection. We now empower the Master, in his discretion and according to the provisions which give him that power, to get rid of the curator and it is then for the curator or any other aggrieved person who is not satisfied with the decision of the Master to go to court. Because we have reversed the position we have a certain hold on the curator which we did not have in the past. In future a curator will have to mind his step and do his work properly, otherwise complaints will be lodged with the Master who will then take action, and it can also been seen to that he does take action, something which was not possible in the past. As a result of the new provisions most of the complaints referred to by the hon. member will disappear. Most of the other complaints referred to in those memoranda can be rectified administratively. In many cases they have been rectified administratively and it will also be done in other cases.

The hon. member has referred, for instance, to the appointment of qualified accountants to the police staff who have to do the investigation, or to the staff of the Attorney-General to assist him. That is a matter which we are considering at the moment. Our difficulty is that it is not so easy to find the people. The hon. member knows what they earn outside and that it will be very difficult to attract them to the Public Service. But we are giving attention to the matter. We realize that that is essential and that it would be of great assistance to the police. I am doing my utmost to try to bring this about.

The hon. member raised a third principle, namely, that the State should be responsible for the investigation. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that where it is a question of a criminal contravention and the assistance of the police has been called in it is their duty to conduct that investigation. But I think the hon. member is asking too much when he asks that the principle that the State should be obliged to step in and conduct the investigation should apply generally in the case of all insolvent estates. If he asks that he is asking for something which the State cannot undertake. In those cases where there has indeed been a contravention the State is forced to step in but if on the face of it a contravention has not been committed, it naturally has to be done at the expense of the estate.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.