I move as an amendment—

1. “(ii) ‘arbitration’ means arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1965; (ii)”

Agreed to.

I think the hon. Minister will appreciate my reason for asking that I be permitted to move—

I think it should stand over until we have had an opportunity to consider some of the other clauses because the amendments standing in my name to amend certain definitions obviously depend on the acceptance of other clauses.

Agreed to.

On Clause 7,

There are two subsections in Clause 7 in regard to which I should like some clarity, notwithstanding the fact that I served on the Select Committee. The first is 7 (3) which states that the reading or recitation in public or the broadcast of any reasonable extract from a published literary or dramatic work, if accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgment, shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work. The problem in this regard is the question of broadcasting and the question of what is meant by a “reasonable extract”. I know that the intention of this provision is undoubtedly that if, for the sake of argument, somebody broadcasts a lecture on literature, he should be able to read or recite a poem or a portion of a poem which has reference to that lecture. But this provision can go considerably further than that. A substantial piece of work may be recited and yet one may still be able to say that it is a reasonable extract. In the case of a long epic poem, let us say, one may be able to recite from that poem for as long as five minutes and yet describe the quotation as a reasonable extract. I feel that in this regard we should, if possible, differentiate between broadcasting in public and reciting in public. In my opinion there is no reason why a body like the S.A.B.C. should not be able to make special arrangements for a broadcast which takes longer than a certain period which we may be able to determine in this regard, let us say, 30 seconds. We can then say that a reasonable extract is defined as something which can be broadcast within a period of 30 seconds. If the broadcast takes longer than 30 seconds, permission has to be obtained.

Sub-section (4) deals with the publication of work which is intended for use in schools. The term used here is “a short passage” from a literary work for use in schools but there is a restriction inasmuch as not more than two such passages may be used. Here we have a basically good provision if it were not for human fallibility because we have, unfortunately, to deal with writers who do not use a typewriter or a pen in order to write but, who use scissors and a glue-pot. The late Langen-hoven found it necessary to attack these writers who fill their own pockets by means of scissors and a glue-pot and by picking another man’s intellect and spirit. Because of this exemption, this, one could almost call, wicked South African tradition will be encouraged because we must remember that one of the most important uses or markets for books is the school. Sub-section (4) reads—

Any collector can state that a collection of poems is intended for use in schools. A collector can maintain that any collection of literary polemics is intended for use in schools. If a court is requested to decide whether there has been any infringement of copyright, any writer will be able to submit that his work was intended for use in schools. I do not think that any court would find such person guilty, unless his work was of a really exceptional character. There is therefore an extremely difficult yardstick to apply. Once again the question is: What is a short passage; what portion of a long epic poem is a short passage? If the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) published a collection of literary polemics, one entire polemic would not constitute a short passage from that collection. I have no objection if a short passage is taken from a specific polemic but I think that this provision lends itself to misuse. I think that the short passage should be defined in some or other way in order to protect the writer. I want actually to pass the necessary comment at a later stage when we deal with the copyright tribunal, because I think it is a pity that the copyright tribunal should be such a formal body. Actually, we need a less formal body to which questions of this nature could be referred and which could in advance decide what constitutes a reasonable extract for which no remuneration should be paid. In any case, I must put it to the hon. the Minister that I think that the broadcast provision in sub-section (3) should be restricted by a time limit and I should be pleased if he could be more explicit in the Bill in regard to the term “brief passage” in order to make its meaning quite clear. I know that he cannot do so today because he still has to consider what I have said but he may perhaps be able to do so in the Other Place.

The point raised by the hon. member for Kempton Park is one argument in respect of collections published of the kind referred to in sub-section (4), but there is another argument as well and I would like to see the passage as it stands now remain the law. That is, I should like to see the Bill passed in the form in which this sub-section now stands, because if one bears in mind that there are many authors who rely for their living on the income they receive from the protection given in respect of the works they publish, one will appreciate that that income must be protected whilst at the same time the opportunity must be given to those who are responsible particularly for the teaching of languages in our schools to be able to include the best of current literature and poetry for educational purposes in the schools. I believe that this clause fulfills both those tasks. It protects the intellectual property of authors, and at the same time it allows for examples of their work to be used for teaching in schools, provided the four sub-sections (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (4) are complied with. I believe that that takes the best of both worlds. You do not want to use the intellectual property of an author or a poet to his disadvantage. At the same time you do not want him, through his copyright protection, to be able to hold the publishers of books or schools up to ransom. This clause, by making it permissible for reasonable extracts to be published with acknowledgment, enables that work to be used for the purposes of education, and yet at the same time in the broad field it protects the intellectual property of the author in question. I believe that the clause as it stands is a desirable one and that it should remain as it stands because it both protects the author and the property which he has created by his own genius, and at the same time it allows the benefit of his genius to be used for educational purposes.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) referred to Clause 7 (3). I should also like to pass a few comments in this regard. The purpose of this Bill is to protect the author and the creator of the products of the mind. At the same time, as the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) said, one does not want to prevent the author or creator of a product of the mind from having his work used or broadcast, or, on the other hand, to enable him, in the words of the hon. member for Zululand, “to hold people up to ransom”. But I do want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks that sufficient protection is given in Clause 7 (3) to the creator of a product of the mind, and this holds good for the broadcast of reasonable extracts from published literary or dramatic works. I should like to point out that broadcasting is omitted from the British Act.

I think, however, that it is quite right that this provision should be included but one is still faced with the question which the hon. member for Kempton Park raised, which is: What is meant by a reasonable extract? The hon. member for Kempton Park suggested a remedy which in my opinion is not the correct one. He said that the Broadcasting Corporation should enter into an agreement with these people in regard to what can and what cannot be broadcast. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Kempton Park whether they do not think that an amendment in the following terms will meet the case. The hon. member for Kempton Park does not want the Broadcasting Corporation to be able to rob, virtually, a writer of his income by quoting overlong extracts from his works, a fact which may damage the seller of those works. I think that he wants to protect the author against a possibility of this nature.

I want to suggest that the following proviso may perhaps be inserted: “Provided that it does not infringe the right of the author of such work to claim a fair remuneration.” Such writer cannot then prevent the Broadcasting Corporation from broadcasting extracts of his work but if the Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts extracts which are overlong so as to cause damage to the author, then the author can tell the Broadcasting Corporation: “You quoted so much and I demand payment for it.” The matter can then be settled either by the copyright tribunal or by way of arbitration. I agree with the hon. member for Zululand as far as sub-section (4) is concerned. It is very difficult to maintain a balance but I agree with the hon. member that the sub-section should remain as it is. But as far as subsection (3) is concerned, I want to ask the hon. member to consider giving the author protection by preventing the Broadcasting Corporation or somebody else making misuse of this clause by reading or quoting long extracts in public. If these words are inserted there will be no infringement of the right of the author to demand a fair remuneration. I think that this will meet the case put here by the hon. member for Kempton Park and will at the same time not place the Broadcasting Corporation in a less favourable position. I should like to make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister.

Does the hon. member move that proviso as an amendment?

No, I do not want to move it as an amendment. I am merely suggesting it for the consideration of the hon. the Minister who, if he deems fit, can move an amendment to this effect in the Other Place.

I quite understand the problem of the hon. members for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) and Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee), but I am informed that the Bill as it is at the moment provides adequate protection in this case. We are protecting the author here but we must not allow the pendulum to swing too strongly the other way and so place bodies such as educational bodies at a disadvantage. As far as sub-section (3) is concerned, it is very clear that the reading of extracts is restricted to reasonable extracts. We have the court which can determine what a reasonable extract is. In cases of this nature, where they have decided that use has been made of extracts to an unreasonable extent, the courts have often awarded damages to the authors.

I think, therefore, that there is adequate protection in this regard. The same thing holds good for sub-section (4), to which the hon. member for Kempton Park referred. Here, too, the court has the right to decide whether the author has the right to any damages. I think that adequate protection is afforded by this Bill but if we do find that it is necessary to provide greater protection in this regard we shall give further consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate that the amendment which stands in my name reinstates the position as set out in the first Bill which the Minister introduced in 1963, in which the right of the S.A.B.C. in respect of broadcasting was confined to remuneration in respect of one service only as far as the public playing of records was concerned. Sir, I made my position quite clear in regard to the broad principle of this in the second-reading debate, and I do not wish to traverse the whole ground again. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that no objection was raised before the Select Committee to what I have suggested in this amendment. Neither the S.A.B.C. nor anybody else objected to the principle contained in the amendment that there should be no exploitation of what any person has created in the shape of technical or spiritual or artistic works. This is applicable to both manufacturers and individuals.

What my amendment seeks to do is to prevent a manufacturer, who makes use of a medium established by the State for the purpose of advertising, from being protected by law to do what amounts to legalized theft, and that is to steal the product of another manufacturer who through his artistic talent has created a commodity. My amendment seeks to prevent one manufacturer from practising legalized theft in order to promote the sale of his own manufactured products. I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate that, and I think the Minister will also agree that the S.A.B.C. raised no objection to this provision. They recognized that there was a principle involved here, that principle being that there should be no exploitation of the product of another individual. It is on this basis that I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to this amendment. The Minister will appreciate that I am not pressing the whole case as I argued it in the second reading. If the Minister’s legal advisers feel that the amendment does not quite cover the situation, but he is prepared to say that he will give further consideration to the principle involved here and that he is prepared to consult further with his legal advisers, I would be happy to accept that position and to withdraw my amendment pending the Minister’s further consideration and upon receiving an undertaking from him that he will put the matter right in the Other Place. I admit that my amendment was drafted rather hurriedly. I uplifted the provisions as they stood in the original Bill introduced by the Minister. In the meantime I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (a)making a record embodying the recording;
2. (b)causing the recording to be heard in public; and
3. (c) broadcasting the recording,

whether a record embodying the recording is utilized directly or indirectly in doing such acts: ”

; to add the following proviso at the end of sub-section (4):

1. (a) at any premises where persons reside or sleep or in factories or similar establishments as part of the amenities provided mainly for residents, inmates or employees; or
2. (b) as part of the activities or for the benefit of a club, society or other organization which is not established or conducted for profit and whose main objects are charitable or are otherwise concerned with the advancement of religion, education or social welfare,

the act of causing it to be so heard shall not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the recording: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply—

1. (i) in the case of such premises as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of this sub-section if a special charge is made for admission to the part of the premises where the recording is to be heard; or
2. (ii) in the case of such an organization as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this sub-section if a charge is made for admission to the place where the recording is to be heard, and any of the proceeds of the charge are applied otherwise than for the purposes of the organization.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has just indicated that he will be satisfied to leave the matter at that if the hon. the Minister will consider the principle contained in his amendment and perhaps move an amendment in the Other Place. Nevertheless those of us who differ from him in regard to this particular clause cannot leave the matter at that. I think it is our duty to express our opinion here, otherwise it will mean, as the hon. member stated in very mild terms, that we shall be leaving the matter at that and the House and the hon. the Minister will then not be aware of the fact that there are some of us who differ very strongly from the hon. member for Turffontein on this issue.

Why do you not leave it to the hon. the Minister to consider the matter?

On a point of order, I think that the amendment which the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has moved and which is now under discussion, seeks to introduce a new principle into the Bill. For this reason I submit that the amendment is out of order and that, accordingly, debate on the amendment is not permissible.

I am not quite sure that the hon. member is not correct but I should first like to hear arguments in this connection.

May I immediately proceed then, Mr. Chairman, to argue the point?

Yes.

The principle of the Bill, as adopted at the second reading, is that no remuneration will be paid to the party who has been responsible for the manufacture of the mechanical part of a gramophone record. This is the simplest way in which to put the position. This is the principle which has already been adopted and the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein, with his proviso at the end of sub-section 4 which reads: “Provided further that the Corporation shall have the right to broadcast sound recordings subject only to the owner’s right to receive an equitable remuneration for the use of such recording in commercial broadcasts”, contains a pertinent provision to the effect that some remuneration should be paid to the manufacturer under certain circumstances. This is a new principle which is in conflict with the principle as adopted at the second reading.

I should like to support the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) very strongly as far as this point of order is concerned. The principle in this Bill is that in the case of music and literary work and similar things copyright is vested in the author thereof. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) now proposes to move an amendment to the effect that copyright will not only vest in the creator of these products of the mind but that copyright will also vest in the man who records it mechanically; in other words, that copyright should also vest the record-maker. The hon. member may just as well move an amendment to the effect that the copyright in a book should not vest in the writer of the book, in the creator of that product of the mind, but that it should also vest in the publisher of the book. In other words, the hon. member is trying to introduce a completely new principle—that the copyright should also vest in the publisher or the record-maker, as the case may be, which is completely in conflict with the principle of this Bill. This Bill provides that copyright should only be vested in the creator of these products of the mind.

I just want to deal with one point made by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). The hon. member has tried to draw a comparison between the copyright that exists in a book published by a publisher and the copyright that exists in a gramophone record made by a manufacturer, but this Bill, for the first time, gives protection in Clause 16 to the publisher of a book; it is one of the new principles written into this Bill. It is a principle which has never existed before. I mention that to show how erroneous the thinking of the hon. member for Vereeniging is.

What copyright protection did he get?

Copyright protection is given in this Bill to the publisher of a book, apart from the copyright enjoyed by the author. I will deal with that when we come to the relevant clause in a moment. Sir, that was even recognized and stated by the Minister in his second-reading speech yesterday, as the hon. member would have known if he had listened. This is one of the innovations in this Bill. I mention this in passing to dispose of the point made by the hon. member for Vereeniging because he has no point there. But I want to come to the argument of the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) which is much more to the point. The hon. gentleman says that there is no provision in this Bill for compensation to anybody as far as mechanical reproductions are concerned. Sir, the hon. member is misreading the Bill. Clause 3 sets out what copyright is, and for the first time it deals with the question of copyright in respect of the performance in public of a copyright work or the broadcasting of a work which enjoys copyright. Sir, you will notice that the Bill is divided into Chapters and Clause 13, which falls in Chapter II, deals with copyright in sound recordings, which is also an innovation in this Bill. The clause that we are now dealing with deals with the copyright in sound recordings, namely gramophone records. This clause therefore provides that copyright may exist in respect of a gramophone record. [Interjections.] Sir, it is very difficult to proceed when there are so many interruptions.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to proceed.

These interjections obviously arise out of the utter ignorance and puerility of hon. members opposite in respect of a highly technical subject.

On a point of order …

Order! We are discussing a point of order at the moment. Let us first dispose of this particular point of order.

I wanted to raise a point of order on the point of order which the hon. member is discussing at the moment. I submit that he is going beyond the scope of that point of order. He is dealing with the merits of his case whereas he should confine himself to the point of order under discussion.

Sir, I am not attempting to discuss the merits of my amendment. I am merely trying to make a case on a matter which is highly technical. My amendment does not contain any extension of principle. I am merely dealing in my amendment with what is termed in this Bill a neighbouring right in respect of the main principle. This Bill embraces the principle that copyright is given in sound recordings, in other words, in gramophone records, and all I say in my amendment is that there should be payment in regard to this copyright—and the whole Bill deals with the principle of payment to the creator of an intellectual product, which in this case is a gramophone record. All I am saying is that when the S.A.B.C. plays a record, compensation should be payable when the commercial aspect is involved. My amendment does not in any way extend the principle of the Bill as passed at the second reading.

I started by discussing this clause on its merits and I should very much have liked to have continued in this vein but I cannot but agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) and I should like to explain my feelings in this regard. Sir, when one considers whether a principle has or has not already been accepted at the second reading, I think that one has to ask oneself to what extent such principle is a principle of the Bill, because, from the nature of the case, a Bill of this nature contains various principles which have already been adopted at the second reading. In this regard, I must agree with the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) on one point and that is that a definite copyright is given to the maker of gramophone records in this Bill. The copyright which is given to him is to the effect that that record cannot be duplicated in the form in which he has made it; this is the copyright which is given to him as the maker of the gramophone record. The hon. member for Turffontein has now moved an amendment which gives such person a very important additional copyright and that is that that record may not be played in public without his being remunerated therefor. In other words, over and above the copyright which the record-maker has for the duplication of the record, the hon. member for Turffontein also wants him to have a copyright in connection with the playing of that record in public or in connection with the playing of such record by the South African Broadcasting Corporation. I say that because that provision does not appear in the Bill as adopted at the second reading, the amendment which the hon. member has moved affects a principle, which does not form part of the Bill as adopted at the second reading. My submission is that a new principle of this nature cannot be inserted at the Committee Stage and therefore I feel that the amendment is in fact out of order.

Sir, we are dealing with Clause 13 which establishes the principle of copyright. Now, copyright is the protection of intellectual property. It is the only means we have of protecting intellectual property because it is not something tangible and physical. That is the umbrella which is established by this clause—the protection of all kinds of intellectual property. Surely, Sir, it is open to us to discuss in the Committee Stage whether this or that type of intellectual property is proper to come under the umbrella of protection which is established in principle by this clause; that is to say, in arguing that this or that type of intellectual property should come under the umbrella of protection, is not arguing against the principle of protection already established. While it is open to argument whether gramophone records are a type of intellectual property which should come under the umbrella, it is not open to argument that that type of artistic creation is not intellectual property at all. To put my point crisply, what you, Sir, with respect, have to decide is this, that whilst this clause establishes an umbrella of copyright as a form of protection, it is open to my hon. friend and others to argue whether or not this or that type of intellectual property should properly be under that umbrella.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) extends the scope of the Bill beyond what was envisaged at the second reading. I therefore cannot accept the amendments.

Sir, am I permitted to argue against the present restrictive form of this clause? May I refer to the discussions in the select Committee in respect of this clause?

The hon. member may deal with the contents of this clause. He cannot discuss his amendment.

If I cannot discuss my amendment then surely I can discuss the question of copyright in sound recording, which could be on a tape or on a gramophone record. If we are prepared to accept the principle of establishing a copyright in sound recordings, then I submit, with respect, that I am entitled to stress that this principle should not be unscrupulously exploited and that the Bill should give adequate protection to sound recordings.

The hon. member may do that within the scope of my ruling.

Sir, there was a lengthy discussion in the select Committee on this principle. Having once agreed that this Bill provides for a copyright in sound recordings, are we not entitled to discuss what degree of protection should be offered to the creator, the manufacturer of such sound recordings?

That is out of order. The hon. member cannot discuss the protection which the manufacturer is going to get under this clause.

May I put it this way then? In the other clauses we deal with the rights of authors and composers to create works and how those works will be restricted and what protection they will get, etc. Here we are dealing with another type of composer and author. A private individual who creates intellectual property by writing an article uses his pen to write on a piece of paper and he then transfers his thought processes on to the paper. Here we are dealing with a clause which extends copyright to a sound recording which can only be made by mechanical processes; it can only be made by machines but the machine must be guided by some intellectual processes on the part of the person operating the machine. What the machine records must obviously be created by musicians or composers or authors, and the reason why the select Committee recognized the principle of granting copyright in sound recordings was because it recognized that a person who makes a sound recording, in this case a gramophone record, has to exercise a certain degree of artistic talent and display a certain amount of intellectual ability.

That is why I cannot reproduce it; that is the protection he gets. You are by-passing the Chairman’s ruling now.

I am not by-passing the Chairman’s ruling. I am discussing that very point; here we are giving this very protection to the person who creates the sound recording.

What is the point the hon. member is discussing?

I am discussing this clause Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member tends towards discussing the necessity of protecting the manufacturer and that is out of order.

What I am trying to point out is that where the Bill gives protection to an author and a composer …

This clause does not provide for that at all.

With respect, Sir, somebody creates a sound recording and in this particular case the only person who creates it …

I have given my ruling.

Sir, I am not discussing my amendment; I am discussing the clause. Somebody must surely create the record and in this case it must be the gramophone record manufacturer and nobody else. That is the point I am trying to make, with respect, Sir. If that is so then I wish to discuss the point that this clause does not go far enough in giving adequate copyright protection.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that. That is out of order.

I should like to discuss this sub-section briefly and submit a matter to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. As we have already said, this clause gives a copyright to the maker of the record in respect of the duplication of that record. That copyright is given to such person for 50 years. When one looks at sub-section (4), one finds that it reads as follows—

Sub-section (5) expressly excludes certain acts. I feel that where one wants to make use of such records in private, one ought not to be deprived of the right to make a reproduction or a copy of that record. If we look at sub-section (1), we will see that its provisions are so wide that that copyright exists under all circumstances, particularly too in regard to the restriction which is imposed by subsection (4). I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, as far as this clause is concerned, private persons should not be given the opportunity to make reproductions for their private use.

I should like to direct the attention of the House to the second portion of sub-section (4), the further proviso which starts in line 75. Certain concessions are made and then we have the proviso which reads as follows—

This means, Mr. Chairman, that if I have bought a record, I may not make a tape recording of that record at home for my own private use. Let me put it in this way: If I buy an expensive book, there is nothing to prevent me, because I want to preserve the book—it may perhaps be a book which I shall never again be able to buy—making copies of that book for my own use. I may even make photostatic copies of the book for my own use provided that I do not sell them or do anything of that nature. I may have an expensive record or a valuable or unusual record and I want to preserve it but I may not make a tape-recording of that record for my own use. I do not think that that is right. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider the omission of the further proviso to sub-section (4). The position will then remain as it is set out in Clause 7—that for personal use, one will have the right to make a copy for one’s own use.

Is the hon. member moving an amendment to that effect?

I am merely suggesting it for the consideration of the hon. the Minister.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member. This matter was discussed in detail and thrashed out in the Select Committee. This Bill is a reflection of the decisions of the Select Committee. If I were to accede to the hon. member’s request, anyone would be able to go to a record library, take out a record and duplicate that record for his own use. I do not think that it would be fair to the record makers if every person was allowed to make his own private recordings from records which he can obtain by other means.

I am sorry, but I think that the hon. the Minister has misunderstood me. I said most expressly that if I had bought a record, as I had bought a book, I should then have the right to make a copy of it. This matter was discussed by the Select Committee and I think that I should say at this stage that I asked for a clarification of the matter when it was brought to a vote. The explanation was such that I voted for this provision. Immediately afterwards I was told that it did not cover this point. I then told the Select Committee that if that were the case I would move an amendment in the House. I am in complete agreement with the hon. the Minister that people should be prevented from taking records from a record library and making copies of those records for themselves. I am also opposed to the fact that if the S.A.B.C. broadcasts records, a person should make recordings of those records at home and then use them for his own pleasure. All I am saving is that when somebody buys a record and he wants to preserve that record, he should have the right to make a recording of that record just as he has the right to protect a book by placing that book in a cover and making copies of the book. I just want to add this, Mr. Chairman: This prohibition is quite impracticable. It has no value in practice. Nobody will be able to enforce it. The people who have to ensure that this protection is given will now have to come and search my house in order to see whether I have such a tape-recording and whether I have the record or not. When will they have the time to do this? What will the cost of such action be? In any case, I shall go ahead and make the recording. Technically, this is an offence and so they can take me to court and claim damages. What damage have they suffered? It is going to cost them far more to take me to court than the few rents which they would otherwise make out of this matter. I just want to emphasize the fact that this provision is impracticable. I do not know why we should make offenders of people who are actually not committing any offence at all and who are exercising a right which they will in any case exercise. I say that this provision is not enforceable.

I should like to support the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) in his argument. This point was dealt with and considered by the Select Committee but I do not think that that is any reason why we should not make this farther request because these circumstances actually only came to light after the Bill had been considered by the Select Committee.

Then you will be out of order.

That does not mean to say that I shall not be in order in this case. Must we accept the fact that because there was a Select Committee we should not discuss the Bill at all!

I just want to explain what gave rise to this request. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort did not mention this. It may happen that I have a very valuable record. It is my own record which I have purchased: it is not a record which I have obtained from anyone else or which I have borrowed from a library. I may want to preserve this valuable record because it may no longer be obtainable. In those circumstances it may perhaps be desirable to put the record on tape so that I can play the tape and so preserve the record. That is why I feel that this is really a matter which merits consideration. I should like to support the hon. member for Fort Beaufort mainly because I think that this provision is really of no practical value as far as its enforceability in private homes is concerned. We may therefore just as well exclude this provision.

Although I am sympathetically disposed towards the argument of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) I am afraid that if we agree to his request we will be opening the door to a great deal of misuse. Let us take the case of cafés. Each café-owner buys 10 or 20 or 100 records to play in his café.

But not for private use.

The record maker receives his profit. The records these café-owners buy are not for private use, or rather, one is never able to judge whether they are for private use or not. In practice the objection of *he hon. member for Fort Beaufort is covered by what he himself has said—that as far as the private individual is concerned, this provision is not enforceable. That is why. as the hon. member quite correctly said, he will continue to make tape-recordings of his valuable records. Nobody will enforce this provision m his regard. But if we give him the lawful right to do this, we will be leaving a loophole winch will be very unfair towards the record makers for the simple reason that café-owners, inter alia, who are a good market for the record makers, will then be able to make tape-recordings of records. They will then be able to play those tape-recordings without buying the records. That is why I think that, in practice, the hon. member for Fort Beaufort does in fact get everything he wants, but if we retain these words we will prevent the opening of a loophole which will be very much to the detriment of record makers.

I just want to say that my hon. friend the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has completely missed the point. If a café-owner has a number of records of which he makes tape-recordings and then plays those tape-recordings, he is not doing so for private or personal use.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, how many times may an hon. member speak during a Committee Stage— twice or three times?

Three times.

I do know the rules, Sir. The point is that if a café-owner were to make use of tape-recordings in his café he would not be making use of those tape-recordings for his private or personal pleasure; he would be using them in order to entertain his customers. If this further proviso is omitted, we will not be leaving a loophole because a café-owner who makes use of tape-recordings of records in this way will not be doing so for private purposes. I do not think that the argument of my hon. friend holds any water at all.

I have enjoyed this little discussion between hon. members opposite. I think it reveals quite clearly the lack of knowledge on the part of some of them in respect of the actual import of this clause. When they argue at cross purposes it indicates quite clearly that they have a complete misunderstanding of the import of this clause.

In the first instance I want to draw the Minister’s attention to sub-section (1) of Clause 13 which reads—

What is a qualified person? “Qualified person” is defined in the definition as follows—

1. (a) in the case of an individual, a person who is a South African citizen or is domiciled or resident in the Republic; and
2. (b) in the case of a body corporate, a body incorporated under the laws of the Republic.

Let us take the principle of a copyright in a sound recording further and we come to subsection (4) which says clearly—

It is so clear, Mr. Chairman. The act restricted by copyright in a sound recording is the making of a record embodying the recording. It is not the music; it is the actual act of making the recording. It is there where the copyright subsists. If that is so all I want to suggest is that the act of making a recording should embody two further acts, namely, the public performance of this recording and the broadcasting of this recording. It is not a question of touching upon a principle at all. It is merely the act of making the recording. I am suggesting not only that act but the act of performing and the act of broadcasting. Where is there an extension of a principle?

On a point of order, the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrani) is continuing to try to circumvent the ruling you have already given, Sir. He is again trying to show why money must be paid to the record-manufacturing firms. You have ruled that that has already been decided on.

I shall see that the hon. member does not go further.

The point I want to make with the Minister is this: Should the copyright in respect of a sound recording be restricted only to the act of making that recording? That is the query I raise with the hon. the Minister.

That was decided on during the second reading.

Surely I am entitled to query this clause. Why should the copyright be restricted only to the making of a recording. Surely I am entitled to move the deletion of these words “The act restricted by copyright in a sound recording … in doing such act, is the making of a record embodying the recording.” The moment I move their deletion I widen the whole provision of copyright in respect of a sound recording. I do not restrict it to the one act of making the recording. That is where I am stymied. Sir. If I cannot discuss the deletion of these words then what is there for me to discuss. Then we sit in a vacuum. Then I have nothing to discuss.

The hon. member is again discussing his amendment and there is no point in doing that.

I am not discussing the amendment, Sir; you have ruled my amendment out of order. I am trying to find out what to discuss in this clause if I cannot discuss the restriction implied here that the copyright in a sound recording is restricted to the act of making a recording embodying the recording. What do I discuss then? If I cannot discuss the deletion of these words then I am left with nothing to discuss.

Why do you not sit down then?

That interjection by the hon. member for Kempton Park illustrates his complete ignorance of the full import of this clause.

Order! The hon. member has had an opportunity of putting his case. I have given my ruling and that is the end of the matter. The hon. member cannot go beyond the scope of the clause and he must accept that as final.

I cannot argue against your ruling, Sir, once you have given it, but I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister. The question I want to ask the Minister is whether, in respect of the copyright in sound recording as set out in sub-section (1) of this clause, should only be restricted to the provisions of sub-section (4) …

Order! I cannot allow that question.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to subsection (6) of this clause. The Bill is so involved that I do not know whether I am correct in making this submission and I should like the guidance of the hon. the Minister in this regard. This sub-section reads as follows—

As I understand this provision, it means this: Let us imagine that a person writes a book at the age of 20 and that his book is filmed. There is then a copyright attached to that film which exists for 50 years. In other words, after 50 years, that film can be shown on television, in cinemas and other places, even though the author is still alive. After 50 years such author is no longer entitled to further remuneration. In other words, the copyright in the case of a book which a person wrote at the age of 20 lasts until 50 years after his death but the copyright in connection with the film which I have mentioned only lasts for 50 years. Accordingly, at the age of 70, the writer receives no further income from that film. That film can then be shown gratis on all television programmes and in all cinemas. The difficulty is that television particularly is making increased use of old films. We shall therefore have the position where television will have material at its disposal virtually gratis, while the creator of that material receives no further benefit from it. I want to suggest an amendment which the hon. the Minister can discuss with his advisers and, if the position is as I have described it, he may consider moving such an amendment in the Other Place. I make this suggestion merely to protect the creator of these products of the mind. I should like to suggest the following proviso to the hon. the Minister—

A provision of this nature will simply mean that such film can still be shown on television after 50 years but that the author will be entitled to a fair remuneration. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider this suggestion and, if my interpretation of this matter is correct, I think it is only fair that we should insert this amendment at a later stage in order to protect authors.

I should like to support the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). We have the difficult position that copyright exists for 50 years in the case of a film while in the case of a book it exists during the lifetime of a writer and for a further 50 years thereafter. The author and his assignees cessionaries can therefore survive the expiry of copyright in the case of a film for a very substantial period. The only justification for the clause as it stands would be—I agree that this is the general practice—if the film-maker pays a lump sum to the author either for the use of the story or for the use of the music. That is why it can be argued that when the copyright in such film expires the author ought in any case to have no further interest in it because he has received a lump sum payment. Except for that possibility, there is no justification for this clause as it is worded at present.

The other possibility is that royalties may be paid to an author; that is to say, a certain percentage of the receipts from the film. The provision in respect of broadcasting and television particularly make it extremely important that consideration be given to the rights of authors. I also want to recommend to the hon. the Minister that be consider the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Vereeniging. I hope that he will consider it seriously. Indeed, there are a few people in South Africa who had certain works filmed in the old days, when the film industry was in its infancy, and now, 50 years after this work was filmed, the copyright is worth far more than it was when the film was made.

I understand that the position is that the author loses his right in so far as a film is concerned when the time has elapsed, but he retains his rights in his original book. I think that is what the hon. member has advocated.

May I explain the position? The copyright in the original book stands for the lifetime of the author plus 50 years thereafter. Fifty years after the death of Bernard Shaw his products may be used by anyone. Say, for example, that Bernard Shaw wrote “My Fair Lady” when he was 20 years old. In 50 years’ time “My Fair Lady” would still have the same value it has to-day. The filmmakers may have entered into a contract with Bernard Shaw in terms of which they purchased the rights for a globular sum. That is all very well and good; that is a contract. But supposing the position is as the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) said, and the author is paid royalties. Then Bernard Shaw no longer gets those royalties in connection with the film “My Fair Lady” after 50 years. “My Fair Lady”, I suppose, will still be a classic in 100 years’ time and be shown over television, etc. The position briefly, is therefore this: A young author writes a book when he is 20 years of age, it is filmed and when he is 70, when he needs the money, he gets nothing more from that film. I do not want the hon. the Minister to reply to me now. I have given him the wording of the amendment. He can discuss it with his experts. This is a very technical matter and there may be other objections. If there are no other objections. the Minister may remedy the position in the Other Place. All I ask is that if after 50 years the television people still make money out of that film, the author should be entitled to a reasonable compensation.

I cannot support the argument advanced by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee).

The hon. member for Zululand next year!

Is that so! Surely by allowing the script of Shaw and the music of Rogers and Hammerstein to be used to make the film “My Fair Lady”, knowing that the copyright will lapse after 50 years and that protection will no longer be available after that period, the publisher as representing the author of the script and the composer of the music would demand a higher fee to cover the fact that those rights lapse after a certain period of time. So it seems to me that in those circumstances a protection to the author and composer respectively of that type of work is in the Bill as it stands. They merely have to use their own ingenuity and that of their advisers to extract at the time permission is sought to use their work, sufficient remuneration to cover not only the protected period but the period thereafter. I believe the law as it stands at the moment affords sufficient protection.

Will you deal with the following point: These large companies have legal advisers at their disposal and they are always au fait with the law. But your individual author is an individual man and he has not got the knowledge of a very complicated’ Act like this, with the result that he is in a very unfavourable position vis-à-vis the maker of a film.

That was discussed in the Select Committee. The fact of the matter is that 99.9 per cent of the composers and authors to-day are represented in these matters through their publishers and they are big companies and have legal advisers, as the hon. member has said. So there is no difficulty in that regard at all.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 16,

This is one of the new provisions in this Bill and I only rise because the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) probably is not aware of the position. I rise in order to point out to the hon. member for Vereeniging å propos of what he had to say just now, that Clause 16 for the first time in our copyright legislation provides that copyright shall subsist not just of the written word, the intellectual product of the man’s mind who wrote the book, but copyright can also subsist in the book itself, in the presentation, in its typography, in the manner in which it is presented.

Just as a gramophone record.

That is correct.

But only for 25 years.

Yes, but the hon. member for Vereeniging just now disputed the point. He said it did not exist. He used the analogy of a book to indicate that there was in fact no copyright. But here we are actually creating copyright as far as the publisher is concerned of a book, quite apart from the copyright that will subsist in the author of the book. I hope the hon. member appreciates that. I am grateful to the hon. member for Ceres for making the reference that I am not permitted to make in discussing this clause.

This protects the publisher of a book so that I cannot exactly reproduce and sell that book. But the hon. member wants something totally different. He wants to have an addition to this protection, viz. that I may not reproduce that book or gramophone record, but in addition, that the maker of the gramophone record should still be paid …

Order! That is not relevant.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 31,

I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 37,

Clause 36 contains the very useful provision that if somebody wants to relinquish his copyright, it must be done in writing. This is an excellent provision. In Clause 37 we are dealing with a person who gives an undertaking to sell his future copyright to some other person. This is really the case of an author who undertakes to hand over to a particular publisher what he produces in future, or in the case of a composer, to a particular publisher of music. Sir, when an artist goes as far as to sell his future work he is obviously a man who is in financial difficulties. He is obviously a man who needs protection, and I feel that in this case the consent should not only be in writing but that it should be notarially executed. We should at least give that artist who sells his future copyrights the protection that he should go, together with the business man who acquires the copyright, to a third person who will be able to tell him: Do you know what you are doing? This is a weighty document. Certain formalities must be observed. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the necessary addition be inserted in Clause 37 to provide that the transfer of future copyright should be done notarially.

I shall devote attention to the matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

On new clause to follow Clause 49,

I move—

1. 50 (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act contained, the State President may make such regulations as he may consider necessary in regard to the circulation, presentation or exhibition of any work or production.
2. (2) Such regulations may empower any person specified therein to prohibit the circulation, presentation or exhibition of any such work or production or to authorize the circulation, presentation or exhibition thereof on such conditions as may be specified in those regulations.
3. (3) The circulation, presentation or exhibition of any work or production in pursuance of authority granted in terms of such regulations shall not constitute an infringement of copyright in such work or production, but the author shall not thereby be deprived of his right to a reasonable remuneration, which shall in default of agreement be determined by arbitration.

Agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clause 1 standing over.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Economic Affairs put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Schedules and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move as an amendment—

I indicated during the second-reading debate that the White Paper was much more specific than the provision itself. The White Paper in dealing with this clause clearly indicates that the intention of this clause is that a pension which is payable immediately prior to the commencement of this Bill, will not be reduced and will continue to be paid from the same source from which it has been paid up to date. As I indicated at the time the insertion of the words “subject to the provisions of this Act” negatives that entirely and makes the safeguard no safeguard at all. Therefore the purpose of my amendment is to bring the section into conformity with what the White Paper says is intended. I need not elaborate on the meaning of the words “subject to the provisions of this Act”, because on the same page of the Bill it says that regulations can be made under Clause 5 (f) which says “prescribe the benefits (determined on the basis of emoluments received over any period or on such other basis as may be determined by the Minister and specified in the regulations)”. It was also made clear during the second-reading debate that a pension is very largely deferred remuneration for services to the State, and there is in the Public Service Act a safeguard in regard to current remuneration. If the hon. Minister will look at Section 22 of the Public Service Act No. 54 of 1957, he will find that there is a safeguard for the public servant that there shall be no reduction of his current remuneration, and it then provides “except in pursuance of an Act of Parliament”. Now one realizes that Parliament being supreme can introduce such legislation, but I think it is a wise safeguard to put it into the legislation specifically that if a change has to be made, it can only be made in pursuance of an Act of Parliament. That will then give the security in regard to what I have referred to as “deferred remuneration”. I hope the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment.

I just want to repeat what is contained in the explanatory memorandum, namely that it is not the intention in ordinary circumstances to reduce the benefits. I further want to explain what the present position is and I trust hon. members will understand, after my explanation, why the position should be retained as it is at present. Clause 4 (1) of the Bill says—

It is essential that the words “except as provided for in this Act” should be inserted and that the sub-section should be retained, for the following reasons: The Minister may, in terms of Clause 14 (2) of the Bill which was taken over from Section 101 of the Pensions Act, order that payment of a pension under certain circumstances be withheld, suspended or stopped. In terms of Clause 15 of the Bill, which is taken over from Section 102 of the Pensions Act, an annuity may under certain circumstances be reduced. Section 65 of the Pensions Act deals with the annuities or gratuities payable to members of the pension funds who are dismissed on the grounds of physical disabilities or permanent ill health arising from and in the course of their service. It is therefore necessary to add these provisions because that provision must in these cases be retained, in the cases where those powers exist in the principal Act, that the annuities of these people may be reduced under certain circumstances, or be reduced gradually, or may eventually be stopped completely. I think hon. members will agree with me that it was not the intention to have any reduction in the benefits payable under ordinary circumstances.

I should like to make it clear that there is no suggestion that we are suspicious of the motives or intentions of the hon. the Minister. That does not enter into it. I accept what the hon. Minister says, that in no circumstances is there any intention of departing from the Act as it is at present. But the point is that in this Bill, the Minister is given arbitrary powers which we assumed in the past were the powers of Parliament. We regard the Public Service Pensions Act and similar Acts as a partnership between the employer and the employee, and where it is a partnership, there is only one adjudicator and that adjudicator should be Parliament and not one party to the agreement. The Government, the Executive, is a party to the agreement, and we feel that if there is to be any change in the agreement, that should be subject to an Act of Parliament. I do not suggest for a moment that the hon. Minister would do anything else, but he has the power now to make regulations, where in the past the power was the law. We know that the reason is that from time to time it is necessary to amend the law. We accept all that, but I think the hon. Minister would be well advised to accept this very modest amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman).

I regret that the hon. Minister has not seen fit to adopt the amendment. It is in the interest of course of persons who are drawing pensions to-day, not only those who may be getting them in future, but it protects their interests as well. I indicated during the second reading that I accept the hon. Minister’s assurance that so long as he is administering the Act, that will be the position. But times change and Ministers change, and I would like to see the law specific on the point. It does not imply that the hon. Minister himself will not handle the matter correctly, but the law should set out what the White Paper has indicated as being the intention. Now when the hon. Minister refers to the provisions of Clauses 14 and 15, they are really not germane to the problem at all, because they deal with how the Department can handle the operation of a pension in case of a defalcation. Moreover should a pension be apportioned to different people in case of need, that is not a reduction; the full amount remains payable, but it is then dealt with in terms of the Act in the interest of the State on the one hand and in the interest of the dependants on the other. But we are dealing with the question of reduction. I cannot take the matter further. If the hon. Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, I think it would be very regrettable.

Hon. members will realize that I have not the least idea that they are now objecting to the Minister concerned, but this applies to any Minister who may be in charge of this Department at any time. I have now pointed out to hon. members that the Minister has the power in terms of Clause 14 (2) of the Bill, which was taken over from Section 101 of the Pensions Act, to order that the payment of a pension should be withheld under certain circumstances.

The full amount. It cannot be reduced.

It can be withheld, suspended or stopped. In terms of Clause 15 of the Bill, which is the real essence of Section 102 of the Pensions Act, a gratuity may also be reduced under certain circumstances.

Deducted, not reduced.

No, according to my information it may be reduced, and I will give the full position as to how it may be reduced. Section 65 of the Pensions Act deals with the annuities or gratuities payable to members of pension funds who are dismissed on the ground of physical injury or permanent ill health arising during the course of their service, and who then have to leave the service. In terms of sub-section (2) of that section, an annuity granted in that respect may in the first place be granted temporarily (for the whole year) and in the second place it may from time to time be increased or reduced depending on the variation in the member’s degree of labour disability it may be reduced until the extent of the labour disability of that member can finally be ascertained. That is the position as it now stands. The final determination of the labour disability must be made within a period of five years from the date of dismissal or resignation. Circumstances may arise where a temporary gratuity is granted only a week before the date of the coming into operation of the Bill, and it is essential that the Department should have the power temporarily to reduce the gratuity if the measure of labour disability decreases after that date. In terms of Clause 1 “this Act” also means a regulation issued in terms of this Act. That is the actual position with which we are faced, and the actuarial position in terms of the principal Act would be completely disturbed were I now to accept the amendment of the hon. member. I am very sorry, but I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

I do appreciate the hon. Minister’s difficulties and I hope that in return he will consider the difficulty that this side of the House is faced with in its responsibility as an Opposition, and their desire as far as possible to reduce the powers of regulation and write the power into the law itself. Would the hon. Minister not consider changing the words “subject to the provisions of this Act” by specifying the different provisions of the Act as he has given them to us now and put those in specially as subject to those particular provisions? In that case he will answer his own argument and he will not be opposed by this side of the House on the point.

I just want to tell the hon. member that that is laid down in the Act.

Amendments put and negatived. (Official Opposition dissenting.)

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to. (Official Opposition dissenting.)

On Clause 5,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

Sub-section (6) has got nothing to do with the question of pensions as such, it has nothing to do with whether a pension law is administered or not. It is simply a situation in which Parliament is now being asked to provide that the edict of the Minister shall in future override the edict of Parliament. That, as I have indicated, is clearly an intolerable position and I do not think that any self-respecting Parliamentarian can agree to the inclusion of a provision of this kind in legislation. You see, Sir, it is trite law in South Africa that a statute always prevails over a proclamation and a proclamation always prevails over a regulation. Here we are now being asked to change the situation entirely and to provide that a regulation which may be made by executive government, whether it be by this Minister or any other Minister, if it should be in conflict with the provisions of any other law (which means a law made by Parliament)—that then the provisions of the regulation shall prevail. We are really being asked to indicate here that Parliament is now merely a waste of time, and we are saying in effect that executive government, if it makes regulations dealing with pensions in this very wide way, finds itself warped in any way by an Act of Parliament, that that Act shall simply be regarded as a nullity and that the legislation itself will not longer prevail. As I say, Sir, it is an intolerable position and I think that provision should be removed.

I think the gravamen of the whole charge lies in this sub-section (6). It is an abrogation of the rights of Parliament altogether. It is handing over the authority of Parliament to the Executive. If the provisions of any regulations are in conflict with the provisions of any other law, the provisions of the regulations shall prevail. It is not a question of whether the provisions of the regulations here are in conflict with the law. That could be challenged, but if the provisions of a regulation made under this Bill are in conflict with any other Act of Parliament, then the provisions of this regulation shall prevail. Well, there is nothing more to be said. Hon. members can throw in their hands. That is the end of Parliamentary government. We do not even require that sub-section. The whole content of the clause remains if (6) is removed, and surely the contents of the clause we are discussing are bad enough. If we look at the contents of the clause in sub-sections (1) and (2), sub-sec. (b) says that the Minister may prescribe the rate (determined on the basis of emoluments received or on such other basis as may be determined by the Minister and specified in the regulations) at which contributions shall be paid to any such fund. I come back to what we discussed in the previous amendment, that this pensions law and any pensions law dealing with contributory funds is in the form of a contract, and there are two parties to the contract, the employer and the employee. I say that the employee should be consulted and have the same authority as the employer. If it is impossible in the ordinary way to have these consultations, then obviously the protector of the employee is Parliament. It is the authority of Parliament we are discussing now, and not the authority of any party or of any court, but the authority of Parliament itself vis-à-vis the Executive, the Government. If Parliament is bereft of this authority, then Parliament ceases to exist in fact. That is the position we are contesting here. I think the Minister, without running any risk and without impairing in any way the efficiency of the administration of the Bill, can accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman).

I can quite follow the argument of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) and I sympathize with him. I myself do not like the idea that a regulation should take precedence over an Act of this Parliament. But what one has in this case is a practical difficulty, and what is meant here by “law” is not defined. As far as I understand it, our difficulty is not parliamentary legislation but provincial legislation, that the provinces may provide things in an ordinance which are in conflict with the general tendency in regard to pension funds, and we do not want a provincial ordinance to obstruct the proper working of this Act. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible, even if he has to do so in the Other Place, to amend this sub-sec. (6) in such a way that it applies only to laws not made by this Parliament but by other legislative bodies.

It may perhaps shorten the discussion if I tell hon. members what I am prepared to do to meet them. In this case the expression “any other law” means a provincial ordinance, but I want to put it more clearly to meet hon. members. I am prepared to consider making a change in sub-clause (6) —“If the provisions of any regulation are in conflict with any other law …”—if hon. members will just give me an opportunity to discuss the wording thereof with the law advisers, I shall then undertake to change it in the Other Place so that it will refer specifically to provincial ordinances.

The Minister has indicated that the provision as it stands is rather intolerable and he is now suggesting changing it. The Minister himself is not quite clear yet what form the change will take. In the circumstances it is extremely difficult for us on this side to leave the matter there. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not ask the Committee to report progress and ask leave to sit again, or to let the clause stand over while he considers the amendment. Will the Minister consider doing that?

Like other hon. members, I am very perturbed about the provisions of this clause. If I follow the Minister correctly, and if he has inserted this because it may be in conflict with a provincial ordinance, I still think that we are in danger of governing by regulation only. If a provincial ordinance can be overruled by a regulation I feel that we will come into serious conflict with the provinces. The Minister must please go into the matter very carefully and he must fully understand that even if we give him the opportunity to redraft this sub-section, we on this side are still against this type of legislation and there will be no guarantee that we will accept what is brought forward by the Minister. If this is going to have any effect on the rest of the clauses in the Bill, I say that we should report progress and ask leave to sit again.

It cannot affect the other clauses of the Bill.

I think it may still be in conflict with some of the other clauses and I was wondering whether it would not be better to let the whole matter stand over instead of just this one clause.

We are greateful to the Minister for assuring us that he will give this his earnest consideration. I do not think the Minister need worry about the provinces. Any legislation passed by a province is subject to the approval of the Central Government. Therefore if the provinces were to pass legislation of which the Minister does not approve, I think the Minister would have the authority, without this sub-clause, to override the provincial legislation. I appreciate his difficulty, but I think he will have that authority and therefore this sub-section is quite unnecessary.

I have now gone a long way to meet these hon. members. I have stated very clearly what our problem is. I have more or less drafted the concession we are prepared to make, and the sub-clause will then read as follows: “If the provisions of any regulation are in conflict with the provisions of any ordinance of a province or the territory, the provisions of the regulation shall prevail.” That is as far as I can go at the moment. I have already given the assurance that if hon. members will give me an opportunity to go into the matter again, I shall be prepared to reconsider it, and then I can make the necessary change in the Other Place if it is not in conflict with the law as such.

Do I understand the Minister to say now that he will move that amendment he has read out to us and if it is not satisfactory he will move a further amendment in the Other Place? Will the Minister not rather agree to accept a motion now that this clause stand over until we have dealt with the rest of the clauses?

If you move that the clause stand over, I am prepared to accept it.

Then I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 10,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

It is very simple. It does not in any way restrict the authority of the Minister. In fact, it gives him authority to be more generous. Sub-section (3) reads—

I wish to add these words: “shall be paid on 31 March of each year interest at a rate of not less than 4 per cent”. In other words, if the Minister wishes to make the rate 4 per cent he may do so, but if he wishes to conform with what the Minister of Finance has told us is the modern tendency, to obtain higher rates, and he feels that these funds should receive a higher rate than 4 per cent, which I think is reasonable he may grant it. I think that 4 per cent on these invested funds is very much too low, and the Minister of Finance has explained to us that he is borrowing money at 5 per cent and higher. If the Minister in his discretion feels that this fund deserves a higher rate of interest than 4 per cent I am anxious to give him the authority to grant it. But the clause as it stands now fixes the rate at 4 per cent, unless it is changed by Act of Parliament. It cannot be changed by regulation. If the Minister wishes to make it 4¼ per cent or 4½ per cent, I wish to give him the authority to do so.

I do not know whether the hon. member is not tampering with something now which should rather be left alone. The position is that the State has to pay a higher rate of interest than 4 per cent on money at the moment, but there are times when the State can get money at 2 per cent. In this particular case one prefers to have a stable rate which is neither too high nor too low. I think we should leave this matter to the Public Debt Commissioners, and if they feel that a change is necessary, they will arrange with the Minister of Finance to put the matter right in his financial measures. When dealing with a pension law, we should not tamper with an old practice which has been in existence for many years, and we should not prescribe by means of legislation what rate of interest is to be paid on these funds. I just want to point out one practical difficulty. Let us assume that the pension fund invests the money with the Public Debt Commissioners at 4 per cent and obtains the necessary investment documents which are negotiable on the market. If the rate of interest is a very low one at that stage, they can sell these documents immediately, perhaps for 125 whereas they paid 100; then they can tell the State that they want certificates for 125, which they then sell again; in this way the capital in the fund appreciates. There is no justification for the State running risks. I think we should rather leave the position as it is. If a change has to be made, it is more a matter for the Treasury than for the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I want to appeal to the hon. member to leave this matter alone. It is an old practice that the rate of interest on pension funds is kept stable at a reasonable figure over a long period, and not for a short period only.

I think the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) is unduly concerned about the proposed change. The money involved is money which is deposited with the Public Debt Commissioners, and what they do with it is not affected by this Bill. It is the Treasury which has to provide from the Consolidated Revenue Fund a sufficient amount to cover this interest at 4 per cent on the investment. It says that the money shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and by definition of “Consolidated Revenue Fund” in the Bill itself these moneys have to be appropriated in the normal way every year. So the administrative problem is overcome. The Minister, in getting an appropriation from Parliament, can say that in the circumstances he intends increasing the rate of interest to 4½ per cent, and there is no need to change the legislation. It can be done through an appropriation in the normal way and it will not affect the administrative arrangements at all. It simply leaves the matter entirely in the hands of the Treasury and the Minister, and if there is need for it it can be done.

This is the existing position in terms of the old legislation, in terms of Section 98 of the Pensions Act. This contains no new principle. I have been told that this section has worked well all these years and that there has never been any objection to it. This clause deals with the pre-Union fund, the combination of the old Cape Civil Pension Fund and the old Transvaal Civil Pension Fund. In terms of the existing law the Minister has the right to decide. Furthermore I just want to point out that what has been proposed by the hon. member for Kensington seems to me to be in conflict with what was said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman). On the one hand they say that they do not want to leave the powers to the Minister, but on the other hand they do want to leave them to the Minister. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) says the powers of the Minister must be restricted and must be controlled by Parliament. The hon. member for Kensington says the Minister must be granted the power to increase the rate of interest to as much as 10 per cent per annum without the approval of Parliament. And these are the hon. members who are so jealous of the rights of Parliament. Are they not jealous of the rights of Parliament when the expenditure of the country is involved? Do they now want to grant powers in terms of which expenditure can be increased to the maximum, and leave the matter in the hands of the Minister alone? If the hon. member for Kensington will look at sub-clause (4) he will see that interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum is guaranteed to the fund in respect of the investment. The 4 per cent is guaranteed, but one also wants a guarantee that it is not being left to the Minister to increase the interest beyond this rate. The provisions of sub-clause (3) have been taken over directly from the old Act. These provisions have existed for many years and there have been no objections. I am sorry, but for these reasons I cannot accept the amendment.

Of course I have the same longing for the good old days which the Minister referred to. It is true that this thing goes back into history, but in those days the South African note was worth a golden sovereign. In those days we had Consols at 2½ per cent and 3 per cent, but those days are gone. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) has indicated the manner in which the Government will come along, through the ordinary Finance Bill, and say that because of the high rates of interest the obvious thing to do is to pay a higher rate of interest.

This is a shortterm adjustment and not a permanent one.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) is creating difficulties in an effort to help the Minister. We are the people who are helping the Minister here. There is no reason why the fund should be pegged at 4 per cent, and I am surprised that public servants in the past have not raised the matter. Why should their funds be pegged at only 4 per cent? It is true, as the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) says, that the 4 per cent is guaranteed, but higher percentages are guaranteed to-day. We heard the rates of interest that the Minister of Finance gave us the other day, as minima. I simply say that the Minister should have the authority to say that the rate of interest should be raised.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I want to forestall the Minister by saying that I know that Clause 11 has been taken over word for word from the existing Section 98, but as I indicated during the second reading, why perpetuate something which can be improved on? I indicated at the time that by the very nature of the matter, pension funds are the property of the present and prospective pensioners whose contributions are in the fund. The Government obviously has an interest as well, and I indicated that its interest was rather a fiduciary one of keeping the fund solvent. But once the money is paid into the fund it really vests in the pensioner and the Government is the trustee and holds this money as the custodian of all public moneys. I say that the principle is wrong that moneys of that nature should be transferred from one statutory fund to another without the sanction of Parliament. I know full well that the number of occasions when this provision is used might be small in number, but it is a safeguard both to Parliament and to the Government and to the beneficiaries of the pension fund that when a transfer of this nature is made it should be ventilated in this House and that Parliament should grant approval. That is a sound principle and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment and agree that it is an improvement on the present position. Any money taken out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to be placed in a pension fund has to get the approval of Parliament. It has to be appropriated in the normal way and so gets the sanction of Parliament, but at present the reverse transaction can take place without any parliamentary sanction. I indicated before that on one occasion I know of when it did happen it certainly was a great shock to many of the beneficiaries in the fund to know that the fund had been substantially reduced without their knowledge. This will at any rate keep everybody informed and I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

I do not think the Minister can have any objection to this. We raised a similar point in an earlier clause. We are simply asking that before any financial change can be made it should be subject to the approval of Parliament. That is the origin of Parliament, that the control of finance shall vest in Parliament and not in the Executive. This is a case in which the control of Parliament should be obtained before money is transferred from this account. I think it is a most important matter and I hope the Minister will accede to this request of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South).

This section has worked well all these years. Certain changes are now being proposed by these two hon. members of the Opposition, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), who have both been in the Service.

But I am not a pensioner; I do not draw a pension.

No, I am saying that the hon. member was in the Public Service.

They do not represent the public servants; they are just talking nonsense.

The hon. members come along here now and propose certain changes as far as this legislation is concerned, while I explained to them very emphatically that the changes proposed in this legislation meet with the approval of the whole of the Public Service. It was at the request of the entire Public Service that this Bill was drafted in this form. The hon. members like to accuse me of being a little stubborn and that I refuse to accept any amendments, but they, too, are not prepared to accept any suggestions made by me. I just want to point out that in the course of the years no less than R24,000,000 has been paid into the Joint Pre-Union Fund in order to keep it solvent. This has been the procedure all these years, and if this procedure were to be changed completely now, against the will of the Public Service itself, one would certainly get a chaotic state of affairs. This Bill was introduced after mature consideration by the staff associations and by the Advisory Council. They are the people who are best able to judge whether or not this measure is in their interests, and we cannot amend the Bill at this stage in the teeth of the fact that the provisions of this Bill meet with the approval of these people. I am very sorry, but unfortunately I cannot meet the hon. members in this regard.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clause 5 standing over.

I am prepared to move the following amendment to this clause—

The hon. the Minister has met our objection to a very considerable extent. Since the hon. the Minister has moved this amendment, I will withdraw my own amendment, with the leave of the Committee.

Clause 5, of course, contains a very far-reaching provision which, as we indicated in the second-reading debate, really abrogates the authority of Parliament. It provides for a situation in which there will be legislation by executive decree rather than by Parliament. This is the most objectionable clause in the whole Bill. Its provisions are such that we feel that far more is being asked for than should have been asked for in legislation of this kind.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman withdrawn with the leave of the Committee.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions put and agreed to.

I want to support what has been said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) and say that the whole clause is objectionable although it has been improved to some extent by the amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister. Nevertheless we find it particularly difficult to accept the powers that he takes in some of the other provisions, such as paragraph (f), which gives him the right to reduce or to change benefits or to give other benefits. I therefore support the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) strongly in what he has said here.

This amendment is, of course, a slight improvement because the Minister restricts his power in that respect, but the whole of this clause is an indication of what is happening in South Africa. We are governing by regulation. More and more regulations are being promulgated and Parliament is being by-passed more and more Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. (Official Opposition dissenting.)

Schedule and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

I move—

On the one hand the object of this Bill is to make statutory provision for contributions by wine-farmers to a fund to be established for the purpose of financing research and publicity in regard to the wine-making industry; on the other hand the Bill contains a number of amendments to the Acts relating to the control of good wine and distilling wine, that is. the Wine and Spirits Control Amendment Act, 1940, and the Wine and Spirits Control Act, 1956, respectively. The proposed amendments are being made to adapt the said Acts to changed circumstances, and with a view to better control and greater clarity as far as the administration of the Acts is concerned.

In regard to the research aspect hon. members are probably aware that, as far as the part played by the Government is concerned, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is responsible for research in the field of viticulture and wine making. The Research Institute of the said Department is well known, and last year the erection at Nietvoor by of new buildings for the Institute was commenced. Wine growers nevertheless felt that there was an urgent need to collect supplementary funds for research, and at meetings that were held they urged that a levy fund, such as that envisaged in the Bill, be established for research and publicity.

The intention is that the levy will be paid from the amounts received by producers for their wine, and that the price of wine to the trade or the consumer will therefore not be affected by the levy.

The research to be undertaken is not intended to take the place of the activities of the said Department in this connection. As a matter of fact, the K.W.V., which will be responsible for spending the moneys in the fund (subject to the approval of the Minister), has given the assurance that it does not intend to utilize such moneys in a way that may be in conflict with the policy or interests of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. On the contrary, the idea is to assist that Department and to act in a supplementary way as far as research and the development of the wine-making industry are concerned.

It is also the sincere wish of the K.W.V. that a portion of the funds collected in this way should be used to support the research work undertaken by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and in particular, therefore, the research work undertaken by the Viticultural and Oenological Research Institute. The K.W.V. may also find it possible to make contributions from the levy fund to the Government’s Research Fund from time to time.

The Department of Agricultural Technical Services is very much interested in the proposed undertaking by the K.W.V. in connection with research and has already intimated that from the point of view of policy it has no objection to the K.W.V.’s proposed research undertaking.

Although in terms of its articles of association the K.W.V. can for this purpose impose a compulsory levy on distilling wine, it does not have the necessary powers to impose such a levy on the good-wine portion of the crop as well. In view of the fact, however, that it is good wine in particular that will benefit most from research and publicity, this special legislation has been asked for.

I shall now briefly deal with the individual clauses of the Bill.

Clause 1 contains the necessary definitions.

Clause 2 provides that the K.W.V. may, with the approval of the Minister, in respect of any year impose a levy on either good wine, or distilling wine and spirits and brandy, or both these classes of products. The rate of the levy imposed on the one product may differ from the rate of that imposed on the other.

This levy will be payable on such quantities of these products as are sold or disposed of during any particular year by a wine grower or a co-operative society to any body or person, including the K.W.V.

The levy will be fixed at a specified amount per leaguer of wine; in the case of distilling wine the amount will be fixed per leaguer of wine of a strength of 20 per cent.

In order to give timeous notice to all interested parties the K.W.V. will, by notice in the Gazette, have to make known before 1 February of any particular year what levy it has imposed and the time when payment thereof has to be made.

Clause 3 (1) provides that the levy will be payable by wine growers who and co-operative societies which sold or disposed of the wine in question.

In terms of the definitions of “wine” in the Acts relating to the control of good wine and distilling wine certain products of the vine such as grapes, “moskonfyt” (grape syrup), raisins, etc., are also classified as wine, and accordingly sub-sections (2) and (3) provide how the levy is to be calculated where such products are sold or disposed of by a wine grower or co-operative society for winemaking purposes.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Furthermore these sub-sections provide how the levy is to be calculated in cases where spirits or brandy as such, or in fortified wine, are sold or disposed of by a wine grower or a co-operative society.

Clause 4 provides that certain transactions will be exempt from the levy. The intention is that only commercial transactions in the Republic will be subject to the levy. For example, the levy will not be payable on wine disposed of in the ordinary course of dealing between a co-operative society and its members. Surplus distilling wine which has to be delivered to the K.W.V. by producers will also be exempt from the levy.

This clause further provides that the K.W.V. may collect the levy by deducting the amount due from any moneys which the K.W.V. holds on behalf of the debtor concerned. This will facilitate the collection of the levy fees.

Clause 5 provides that the K.W.V. must establish an account to be known as the Wine Research and Publicity Account, and that all the moneys paid to the K.W.V. in respect of the levy must be credited to this Account.

The K.W.V. will only be able to use the moneys in the said Account with the approval of the Minister, and these moneys can only be used for two specified purposes, namely research and publicity, in the Republic or elsewhere.

The research can relate to the cultivation of vines of wine-grape varieties (including rootstocks used for this purpose), the production of wine, other fermented or distilled products of the grape, or grape juice, and matters incidental thereto. The K.W.V. can use these moneys to undertake research itself or to aid or promote it.

I indicated at the outset that in this connection the K.W.V. also intends to supplement and to support the research undertaken by the State.

As is provided in Clause 5 (2) of the Bill, these moneys can also be used (with the approval of the Minister) for supporting or undertaking publicity in the Republic or elsewhere in connection with the marketing of wine, other fermented or distilled products of the grape or grape juice produced by the K.W.V. or by other producers or manufacturers in the Republic. The object of such publicity will of course be to promote the marketing of these important products of the Republic.

Clause 5 (3) provides that the K.W.V. must each year submit to the Minister a statement, certified by an accountant or auditor, of the income and expenditure in respect of the Wine Research and Publicity Account. This will ensure effective control.

Clause 6 contains the necessary penalties in order to make payment of the levy enforceable.

I shall now proceed to deal with the various clauses relating to the proposed amendments to the Wine and Spirits Control Amendment Act, 1940 (Act No. 23 of 1940), that is to say, the Act relating to good wine. I shall refer to this Act as the amending Act.

In terms of the amending Act the K.W.V. has control over the production and sale of good wine, and, subject to the approval of the Minister, also fixes the minimum price that producers are to be paid for their wine. Similarly the K.W.V. can fix a quality price for wine.

Clause 7 merely contains the consequential amendments which are necessary to bring the definitions of “minimum price” and “quality price” into line with the amendment proposed in Clause 9 (a). The last-mentioned amendment, that is to say, the one effected by Clause 9, provides that the K.W.V. may, with the approval of the Minister, fix an amount which must be added to the minimum price or the quality price if the wine concerned is purchased or sold in bottles, jars or other containers of a capacity of less than one gallon.

In practice this will mean that the minimum price for good wine sold in such retail containers by the producer will be higher than the price for the same kind of wine delivered in bulk. Where the so-called estate wines are bottled and sold on the farm it will no longer be possible to undercut the minimum price, as a result of the fact that in future the cost of bottling it will be recovered from the buyer.

The other amendments proposed in Clause 9 (a) are merely consequential amendments and improvements of the existing wording.

As far as Clause 9 (b) is concerned, the position is that wine growers and wine cooperatives may sell good wine produced by them directly to consumers at the same price as the minimum price dealers are required to pay for their purchases from producers.

This position came to the notice of the Commission of Inquiry into the General Distribution and Selling Prices of Liquor, and in its Report, No. U.G. 55 of 1960, the Commission recommended that sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the amending Act be amended to provide for a higher minimum price for good wine when it is sold directly to the consumer by the producer than the minimum price which the trade has to pay for such wine. I am referring to paragraph 370 of the Report.

In Clause 9 (b) it is accordingly proposed that the minimum price in the case of such sales be increased by such a percentage of the said price as may from time to time be prescribed by notice by the Minister.

The loaded price, however, will not apply to wine sold to other bona fide farmers exclusively for use on their farms, so that grain and other farmers will still be able to buy the wine they require for their farms at the usual minimum price. The trade also has no material objection to such sales being made to other farmer.

The trade has to pay the excise duty on good wine purchased by it from producers when it resells the wine. The producer, on the other hand, himself has to pay the excise duty on wine sold directly to consumers by him.

Accordingly it is provided that the producer must add the amount of the excise duty payable by him on such sales to his price in order to ensure that the minimum price is maintained.

Clause 8 provides that a wine grower who or co-operative which is not a member of the K.W.V. will, in respect of any good wine sold or disposed of by them, be subject to all the conditions and obligations to which they would have been subject if they had been members of the K.W.V.

We already have a similar provision in regard to the sale of distilling wine, spirits and brandy.

It has always been accepted that sales of good wine by wine growers and co-operatives that are not members of the K.W.V. are subject to the same conditions as apply to members of the K.W.V., and the proposed provision merely clarifies the position.

Clause 10. In terms of the existing provisions of the amending Act liquor dealers and distillers who buy wine from a wine grower or a co-openative must pay the purchase price to the K.W.V. for payment to the wine grower or co-operative concerned.

The proposed proviso makes it clear that the K.W.V. may set off debts against such moneys, and brings the position in respect of good wine into line with that already applying in respect of distilling wine. This proposal will facilitate the financial transactions of the K.W.V. in this connection.

In Clause 11 the same provision as in Clause 10 is made in respect of must, grapes, grape juice, “moskonfyt” (grape syrup), raisins, sultanas, and lees of wine intended to be used for or in connection with making good wine. The K.W.V. will be able to set off debts against any amounts paid to it for the ac-. count of the producer in respect of the said products.

Clause 12 contains proposed amendments to that section of the amending Act which relates to the making of regulations by the State President.

Owing to the ever-increasing part played by co operatives in the production of good wine it is necessary to state clearly in what cases regulations can be made applicable to cooperative societies and co-operative companies as well.

The proposed amendments will in any case not change the position in practice.

Clause 13. In terms of the Liquor Act, 1928 (Act No. 30 of 1928), certain persons or bodies may be granted authority to obtain liquor and to supply it to Bantu persons, and associations of Coloured persons or Asiatics may be granted authority to obtain and sell liquor, without such persons or bodies being licensed to deal in liquor.

As far as purchases of wine from producers by the trade are concerned, however, the control in terms of the amending Act relates to licensed persons only.

In order to make it possible to exercise proper control in regard to the purchasing of good wine directly from producers by such persons and bodies, it is necessary to make the provisions of the amending Act applicable to them as though they were licensed to deal in liquor.

I shall now deal with the proposed amendments to the Wine and Spirits Control Act, 1956 (Act No. 38 of 1956), and I shall refer to this Act as the principal Act.

The principal Act relates to the control by the K.W.V. of the marketing of distilling wine in so far as transactions between producers and the liquor trade are concerned.

Clause 14 substitutes a new section for Section 2 of the principal Act. The said Section 2 deals with the production and disposal of distilling wine, and with the disposal of spirits and brandy. The proposed new section is substantially the same as the existing Section 2, and is being substituted mainly to clarify the position already existing in practice.

However, certain provisions of the existing section, such as those in regard to the restrictions on the sale of brandy and spirits, the production of wine for distillation purposes and the payment of the levies on distilling wine imposed by the K.W.V. in terms of its regulations, relate to wine growers only.

The provisions in regard to observance of the minimum price at which spirits may be disposed of relate only to wine growers and the K.W.V.

As a result of the definition of the term “wine grower” in the principal Act the majority of the wine co-operatives are excluded.

In order to clarify the position, provision has been made in the new section for controlling the sale of spirits and brandy by cooperatives. Co-operatives will also be required to pay the levy to which I referred a moment ago, and will be obliged not to dispose of spirits at a lower price than the minimum price for distilling wine.

Clause 15. The section to be amended authorizes the K.W.V. to supply spirits to its members for fortifying their products, in exchange for distilling wine delivered to the K.W.V.

However, many members require spirits urgently at the commencement of the season, when they do not yet have any distilling wine to deliver to the K.W.V. in exchange f or spirits.

The proposed amendment provides that in such cases the K.W.V. may supply spirits to its members, but the distilling wine in exchange therefore must then be delivered to the K.W.V. within four months.

Clause 16. Section 8 (c) of the principal Act places a prohibition upon the sale or disposal, for potable purposes in the Republic, of spirits manufactured in the Republic from the produce of the vine, unless such spirits satisfy certain specified requirements. However, the section makes no specific provision for thus sale of gin and liqueur in the form of finished products which also satisfy the said requirements. This flaw is eliminated by the proposed amendment.

Clause 17. Section 9 of the principal Act prescribes certain returns which are to be rendered by wholesale dealers in spirits, by distillers and by wine growers. These provisions have become redundant because the information in question is already being obtained by another method and the returns are no longer deemed necessary by the K.W.V. and the Excise Department. The proposed amendment does away with these requirements.

All that is retained is the authority to carry out inspections, as contained in the proposed new Section 9.

Clause 18. In order to ensure effective control it is necessary to make the regulations in terms of the principal Act in regard to removals and sales of wine and spirits applicable to co-operative as well.

For the purposes of effective control the provision for making regulations in regard to the receipt, storage and disposal of wine by distillers and wholesale dealers are extended so as to be made applicable to spirits or brandy as well.

In addition the proposed amendment makes provision for regulations to be issued concerning the requirements to be complied with by any person in regard to the purchase or acquisition by him of wine, spirits or brandy from wine growers or co-operative societies.

We on this side of the House support this Bill because we know its provisions have been asked for by the wine industry. We are pleased to see the wine industry improving their own industry. The wine industry has made terrific strides in exporting its product during the last few years. The quantity and quality of the wine we are exporting to the United Kingdom and the exchange we are earning from the sales of that wine overseas is very impressive and worth a lot to this country.

We are going further in this Bill than only giving protection to the grower, i.e. the grower of the grapes. He has had that protection for some years. We are now going further in providing protection so that there cannot be under-cutting of the wholesaler by the producer of wine. We want to ensure that the wholesaler is not prejudiced when he sells the product he buys from the wine industry as such. Now that we have gone that far I wonder whether we should not go a bit further and see that the consumer, who, after all, is the person who is going to turn this into a wine consuming country, also gets some protection. A minimum price is now guaranteed to the producer and the wholesaler but the consumer, when he drinks wine in any public place, is not protected by a maximum price. Prices vary tremendously.

This is a country producing excellent wines, Mr. Speaker. We are going to a lot of trouble and spending a lot of money to improve the quality of our wines. The industry is now imposing a further levy to find money for research and to expand their markets overseas. It is a good thing. As a producer of agricultural products I am very happy to see it. But are we developing our local market to the full? Prices to the consumer in this country vary tremendously. Where a man can afford to buy his wine wholesale from what I can call the semi-wholesaler/retailer type he gets it at a reasonable figure but where the travelling public, especially the visiting public, the people we wish to capture as the consumers of South African wines, go into a café they are often put off by the very unreasonable price. That puts him off the drinking of wine. In respect of a well-known make of wine there is a big fluctuation in price in this city. It is sold on the average of 9s. or 11s. a bottle in the city but away from the city it is sold for as much as 17s. a bottle. I think this is something to which the hon. the Minister should give his attention if he wishes to expand the market locally.

With the quality of wine we have to-day, we could extend our market to a greater extent in this country, which would be a good thing instead of extending the market in respect of hard liquor, if we protected the consumer. I actually protested at one hotel here in Cape Town. I thought the waiter was doing me down. I protested because I was charged 17s. for a bottle of wine which was usually sold in Cape Town and in the whole of the Western Province for 9s. and never more than lis. I think it is iniquitous, Sir. That is one of the things I would like to mention to the hon. the Minister. I think the wine industry should go into the position and see what can be done.

But as far as this Bill is concerned, Sir, I think everyone in this House is very happy to see that the Minister is giving minimum price guarantees and trying to develop the industry. He is trying to give the industry every protection within reason so that the producer gets a reasonable protection for his hard work which is so seldom the case in respect of agricultural produce in this country to-day.

I want to say in the first instance that all branches of the wine trade and the wine-producing industry in South Africa welcome this Bill. Some branch or other may think it could have been better as far as they themselves are concerned but in general this is a forward step as far as the industry is concerned especially inasmuch as it deals with research.

It has been my experience, Sir, that when you talk in this House and even outside this House about the wine industry the ordinary man in the street has a very vague idea of what it entails. Unless you know how the various facets of this industry fit into one another it is very difficult to give the necessary attention to a Bill such as this. In order to explain this Bill I think you will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I tell the House something about the wine industry.

The foundation of the industry is, of course, the wine farmer as he is called in spite of the fact that to-day most of them are no longer wine farmers but grape farmers. He is the person who grows the grapes which are subsequently used to make wine. He is the axle round which everything turns. In the olden days—when I talk about the olden days I talk about the relatively olden days when I was still a boy—he was a wine farmer in both senses of the word, that is, he produced the grapes and he also made the wine. Comparatively few wine farmers make wine to-day. In order to make wine under the modern circumstances of to-day, and because of the demands made, you need knowledge. The knowledge you require to produce grapes is totally different from the knowledge you require to make wine. The one is part of the farming industry and the other is part of the manufacturing industry. The one calls for one type of technical knowledge and the other for another type of technical knowledge. It is seldom if ever that you come across someone with both the technical knowledge how to grow grapes in the right manner and the technical knowledge to convert those grapes in good wine. That was the first main difficulty.

The second was that the demands made upon us because of increased production and the demands that had to be met to produce a good quality wine meant that we had to spend large sums of money on the building of wine cellars which were good enough to produce good wine. You require certain equipment in cellars to-day which was not used 30 or 40 years ago. It is necessary to have that equipment to-day if you want to make good wine. The result of all this was that the farmers came together and established the so-called co-operative cellars. They are the cooperative societies to which the hon. the Minister has referred. A number of farmers came together and decided that they would no longer make wine individually, but that they would build a cellar jointly, deliver their grapes to that cellar, and appoint as manager a wine expert who did not have to know anything about farming, hoping that that would increase the average quality of their wine. And that was what happened. There are many cooperative cellars to-day which produce good wine. I want to add, however, that the best wines made in South Africa to-day are still the wines made by individual farmers. But the general quality of our wines has improved vastly because of the co-operative cellars.

You have now reached the stage where the wine has been made but has not yet reached its final stages. Before that wine is ready to drink it still has to undergo many processes. It must mature, it must be stabilized, it must be prepared for the trade, it must be blended and it must be standardized as far as possible. All these are things which the small producer cannot do and the small producer may be either a farmer or a co-operative society. The result is that those co-operative societies and the wine farmers sell their wine to the wineries, the so-called trade producers. The wineries are the people who process the wine further, prepare it for the market and distribute it to the retail trade. The trade producers play an exceedingly important role in the wine trade to-day. Without them we would be unable to carry on. A great deal of the research which is done in South Africa to-day is done by them. The distribution channels have been created by them and they have built up the reputation of our good wines. It would be a sad day for the wine industry in South Africa if harm should befall them or if they were eliminated from the trade.

The Minister has had to keep all these people in mind in determining the prices and in addition there are the hotels and bottle stores which are the final distribution points. I only hope that in applying this law the necessary attention will be given to the interests of the wine industry as a whole and not to the interests of one or other facet of the industry.

I have not said anything yet about the most important factor in the wine industry, namely the K.W.V. Where does the K.W.V. fit into this whole complex? In order to understand that we must go back to early twenties when the K.W.V. was established, the days when the wine industry was in a precarious position, when there was over-production, when the wine producer had fallen prey to the traders of that time, traders who were totally different from the traders we have to-day, I might just add, and when nothing but ruin faced the wine farmers. It was then decided to establish a large co-operative society not to make wine, not to sell wine, but to control the entire wine industry. That was why we established the K.W.V. The K.W.V. was our help in need; the K.W.V. assisted the wine farmer out of the difficulties in which they found themselves, I won’t say the flourishing position in which they find themselves to-day, but in any case, the reasonably prosperous position in which they find themselves to-day. We owe all that to the K.W.V.

The K.W.V. does not make wine in the ordinary sense of the word. It is the duty of the K.W.V. to take all the surplus wine off the market but not to make wine in order to sell it to the people. The K.W.V. is also prohibited in its Constitution from selling its products on the retail market south of the Equator. The K.W.V. buys wine but it does not buy it for distribution in South Africa, not to prepare, blend and mature it for sale in the Republic but it does so for sale in countries overseas. The K.W.V. has achieved a great deal in this respect particularly as far as sherry is concerned. In the case of sherry the K.W.V. has been a pioneer. It is due to the K.W.V. that South African sherry has such a very big market in many of the countries in the world to-day. It is a market it has earned for itself on its own merits. But the K.W.V. is not an ordinary buyer of wine. The K.W.V. only buys wine for export purposes. The wines it acquires are distilling wines. Distilling wine is the wine used for the making of spirits and brandy. Spirits and brandy are distilled wine. It depends on how you distill it whether you get brandy or spirits. Spirits is pure alcohol. In the case of ordinary brandy one part consists of brandy, i.e. potstill brandy and three parts of its alcoholic content are spirits. As the brandy becomes more of a liqueur brandy it contains more and more pot still and less spirits. It is very much like milk which becomes creamier. The creamier the milk the nicer it is but if you drink too much milk that is too creamy you become ill sooner than you would if you drank milk which was less creamy. If you drank too much brandy with a very high potstill content, i.e. a very delicate brandy, you would find the effects much worse than in the case of a cheaper brandy.

That, then, is the role of the K.W.V. The K.W.V. is our father confessor; it is the organization to which we all belong (the traders also belong to it); it controls the whole wine industry; in consultation with the Minister it lays down the prices for the various types of wine; it produces the most brandy because it sells to the traders some of whom blend it and some of whom market it just like that. That is the role it plays and in that role it has become a vast power in our wine industry, a power without which we cannot manage. The K.W.V. has been and is of tremendous benefit to us.

Where the Minister will be concerned with fixing the prices between the various groups, I trust, as I said at the beginning, that he and his Department will always do so with a view to the interests of the industry as a whole, with a view to the selling of good wine to as many people as we can find to drink it. As long as this legislation is administered in that way we shall only benefit from it.

The second object envisaged in this Bill is to impose a levy on the sale of wine in order to build up a fund to finance research in the wine industry. I do not want to cast blame on anybody but since the wine industry was started in South Africa a few hundred years ago very little has been done in the way of research. In relation to what is done in other countries where the industry, in relation to the general economy is less important than it is in South Africa, we have done even less. We are very pleased that this Government has realized the need which exists and that we are now going to get a research institute at Stellenbosch. A great deal of research has been done so far but most of it has been done by companies on their own. We are very pleased to see that it has been realized. The field that can be covered by research is a tremendously big one. During the last few years tremendous progress has been made in South Africa as far as the product of the vine is concerned. The quality of our wine has increased to a surprising extent. That did not come about fortuitously. It came about as a result of research but there was no co-ordinated research. We shall get that now. Research was done at a number of places by a number of individual companies.

I want to give a few examples to illustrate what progress has been made in other parts of the world as far as research is concerned. In the Rhine valley the steen grape is the most important grape used for producing the best quality wine. But they have made 20 or 30 selections of the steen grape. If somebody wants to plant a vineyard of steen grapes he goes to the research people. They then come to him and study the lie of his land, the depth of the soil, the formation of the soil, its chemical content and tell him which particular selection he should plant—SI7 or S27 or something like that. They tell him which is the best one for his soil. Thus far we in South Africa have not yet done anything in that direction. We are only starting, more or less in a primitive fashion, with the selection of grapes. They have made such progress overseas as far as a particular type of grape is concerned that they have made 20 or 30 various selections and each selection is suitable for specific circumstances. They can tell in which circumstances a certain selection should be planted. A vine is very selective. In order to produce the right quality the vine is very selective. Here in South Africa we too have already discovered that a certain kind of vine which grows well in one district or in one part of a district or in certain soil will not grow as well in the same soil in another district. Why, we do not know. It is as though Providence has decreed where it should grow well and where not. But we have not yet made the progress other countries have. When you go to Burgundy in France where the famous Burgundy wines are made you find that all the good quality wines are made from one kind of grape only, namely, the pino. Of all the various types of grapes they have there they have only selected this one type. Pino selections have and are being made and all the wine produced in that district is made from pino. But slightly lower down, where the soil is somewhat deeper and does not yield a grape of such high quality they plant another vine called gamay. It thrives well there, bears well and the wine made from it is the wine they give to their employees. Just 30 miles further is Beaujaelais and there they only grow one kind of vine from which they make good wine and that is a type of gamay you get in Burgundy 30 miles away. They also plant pino there; they plant it in the deep soil and from it they make the cheap wine for their employees. That is how far they have progressed in those countries with selection. In South Africa we know nothing or practically nothing about selection. The people who produce export grapes have already done a considerable amount of selection but not at all as much as can be done. As far as wine is concerned, however, we have simply carried on as in the past. Once you have found a vine which thrives in your particular area you simply carry on planting it and you prune your vines indiscriminately without making proper selections. These are only the things concerned in the production of wine. You still have the question of root-stocks. As hon. members know if you plant the ordinary vine your vineyards get wiped out by the pheloxera which was introduced into this country from America towards the end of last century. You have to plant wild vines and graft the ordinary vines on to the wild vines because the latter is resistant to the pbeloxera. We have already had bad failures with the root-stocks we have planted. I can remember one type we planted; it was No. 1202 (they have numbers). It grew beautifully and promised a wonderful crop but just as the vineyard was about to reach its peak all the vines died because the root-stocks did not have the lifespan they should have had. We have discovered through bitter experience which are the best to plant. A great deal more can be done in that direction.

I have mentioned a few of the problems connected with the growing of grapes but there are many other problems connected with the preparing of wine. There are problems connected with fermenting. We in South Africa are to-day beginning to ferment at a lower temperature than previously. We have discovered, particularly in the case of white wines, that in South Africa fermenting at the natural temperature is too high; you lose much of the alcohol, you lose much of the bouquet and you have to keep the wine cooler artificially. The natural fermentation process in the vineyard is at a high temperature and fermentation does not set in at a low temperature. We have to produce special fermenting cells in order to be able to obtain fermentation at a low temperature. We are busy dealing with all those problems but they are problems, which we have not yet mastered and probably never will although the position is improving from year to year. There is the maturing problem. The cheap wines which are marketed to-day are prepared and bottled in a totally different way from the old wine which is a delicately attuned wine. It does not keep well. We should be able to stabilize it and the problem of stabilizing it is a problem which is still giving us many headaches. We are making progress but a great deal of research must still be done in this connection, particularly as far as stabilizing of wine is concerned. I merely mention these points to illustrate the problems that must still be tackled. There are hundreds of others. The wine-producing industry is a scientific industry with a vast number of facets and problems, problems of nature, chemistry problems and particularly human problems. We must solve these problems. The way in which our South African wines have improved in quality shows that we are on the right road, but we still have a long way to go. We must not sit back and think that, because we produce a good wine, we cannot improve on it. We can improve that quality: we can improve it much more. But we can only improve it by means of research. As far as this Bill promotes research, it will be of inestimable importance and value to our wine-producing industry, not only in that research will be carried on, but in that we shall have a place like the Stellenbosch Research Institute, where the results of the research that is done by the various branches of the wine-producing industry, the various separate factories, the various separate institutions, will be collected and co-ordinated. At the moment everything is done in water-tight compartments. The one person does not know what the other one is doing. We shall now have a place where the results of that research will be co-ordinated and that can only lead to even better wines being produced in South Africa. Where Providence has designated South Africa as one of the countries in the world where excellent wine can be produced, it would be a great pity if our people were too weak to make use of that wonderful opportunity Providence has placed at their door.

I shall not try to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) for obvious reasons. We have listened to a very interesting story about the history of the wine producing industry. What the hon. member for Humansdorp has forgotten about the production and consumption of the product of the vine I shall not try to acquire to-day. I want to confine myself more specifically to the latter portion of his speech in which he dealt with research. In this regard I want to address myself to the hon. the Minister and draw his attention to the fact that a fund is being established here with the specific and exclusive object of conducting research in connection with wine and the product of the vine. It also says here “promoting … the cultivation of vines … or in respect of matters incidental thereto.” I do not want to talk about this promotion fund but I want to suggest, again in consultation with the industry, that the objectives of the research fund should be made wider so as to enable the wine farmers, the K.W.V. and whoever administers the research fund to operate in a wider field and not to confine themselves to the production side only. The hon. member for Humansdorp had a great deal to say about the problems connected with research and the work that would be done but he did not say a word, nor is that given as one of the objectives of this fund, to indicate that this fund would also be used for research in connection with the consumption of various wines, the product of the vine. Where research funds have been established in respect of many other industries with the same object as the one we are discussing at the moment, namely, to promote the production as well as the consumption of the product, I am surprised to find that the definition is so narrow as far as the research fund is concerned. I just want to mention that as far as the kitchen is concerned we still have a great deal to learn in regard to the use of wine. In that respect research can be of great importance to us. In countries overseas, like Italy and France, wine is used freely in the kitchen in the preparation of various dishes, in tenderizing meat etc. In this respect very little research has so far been done in our country. I also want to refer to the use of wine for medicinal purposes. Wine can be used to great benefit in hospitals and in sick rooms. In this connection precious little has been done in this country. I therefore want to plead with the Minister to widen the scope of the research fund. It is so narrowly defined in this Bill that it will only be possible to use it for production purposes. I want to mention one other aspect and that is the aspect of alcoholism. J am not suggesting that this fund should be utilized to combat alcoholism but I do want to say this that as far as many other industries are concerned a great deal of attention is given to how their products are used. We also find that in the tobacco industry. Although the tobacco industry as such do not create funds to do research in this regard huge amounts are nevertheless spent on research in combating cancer, for example, in which connection it has not even as yet been proved that cigarette smoking is one of the causes of cancer. But because it is believed that it may be caused by cigarette smoke huge amounts are spent on research in this connection in order to see how the consumers could be protected if that were the case. I want to plead with the Minister to widen the field of operation of the fund so that in future it will also be possible to undertake research, perhaps by means of this fund or by means of a contribution by the fund, to ascertain how the alcoholic can more easily be cured. Unlike in the case of the tobacco industry, the wine industry is directly responsible for the existence of alcoholics. I think it ought to be possible for such a fund to make a contribution even as far as that is concerned. I am not saying that the grape farmers should do it on their own but I would like the objects of the research fund to be made wider so that attention can also be given to the question of consumption. I want to say a few words about sub-section (3) of Clause 5 which provides that the vereniging must have its accounts audited by a qualified accountant or auditor. I want to remind the wine growing industry that many agricultural industries have already come forward with schemes in respect of which the legislation had originally made provision for accountants to audit the accounts but who have subsequently found that it was better to let their accounts fall under the Auditor and Controller General. In that case their accounts are tabled in this House and both sides of the House can ascertain how they have spent their money.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) had a good deal to say about research in regard to the consumption of wine. We are grateful to him for what he said in this regard. My only regret is that he made the remark that he did in connection with the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) at the beginning of his speech. Perhaps that remark was not addressed to quite the right person.

This Bill deals mainly with two aspects of the wine-making industry, namely, research and publicity in the first place and, secondly, the right of the producer to sell directly to the consumer. A good deal has been said about research here this afternoon. The hon. member for Humansdorp succeeded very well in giving those members of this House who are not so well acquainted with the wine-making industry a clear picture of the extent of this industry, and in explaining that in the first place it is a matter of production, of growing the crop, that in the second place we must have an industry to process the product, and that there is the additional aspect referred to by the hon. member for East London (City), namely the consumption of the product, in regard to which some knowledge is also essential. Where the hon. member for East London (City) has made a plea in this regard, with which one cannot but agree, I do want to draw his attention to the fact that the provision made in this Bill, particularly in respect of publicity for the products of the vine, is of such a nature that it can be put to good effect in this direction as well. Because if one wants to advertise a product as effectively as the K.W.V. has done in recent years, one must not set about it in a haphazard way, but must see to it that properly trained persons who make a study of the field in which they have to operate are employed for the purpose. It amounts to this, that the provision made in this legislation covers the very aspects in respect of which a plea was made by the hon. member for East London (City), in that the publicity to be made will also seek to promote the consumption of the products of the vine.

It is to the credit of the wine-farmers and the wine-making industry in our country that they have approached the House of Assembly through the K.W.V., the controlling body in the industry, for legislation to enable them to impose a levy on wine products through the agency of the K.W.V. in order to establish a research and publicity fund of their own. Other good examples we have in this connection are the wheat industry and the wool industry, both of which realized long ago that one cannot build up an industry on a sound basis without the necessary attention being paid to research and publicity. As far as the winemaking industry is concerned, the hon. member for Humansdorp said that research had been neglected and left to the individual wine farmer and the dealers for many years. Then the Government set up the Research Institute, for which we provided the necessary funds some years ago, but here we now have a more modern and more ambitious attempt to afford every producer of wine or of grapes an opportunity of taking part personally in research work. I do not want to deal with the wide field in which research can be undertaken, but I want to say that I trust that the organization which will be put in charge of the utilization of this fund, which has so many possibilities, that is to say, the K.W.V., will, because of the contact it has with the various problems of the industry, be best able to decide when and where it can grant assistance from this fund for the purpose of promoting research in the wine-making industry. We want to congratulate the K.W.V. on this legislation, which will enable our wine farmers to make a personal contribution to the development of the wine-making industry, an industry which has a great future.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) spoke about prices. This is an aspect of the wine-making industry about which consumers are particularly concerned. The hon. member said that he had found that the prices charged for the same bottle of wine varied by more than 100 per cent in the same area. This legislation does not deal with price control in the retail trade. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to have such control, because there is a great difference between the various wine products. One will never be able to lay down a standard price in advance and to apply price control. But this legislation does provide that the right of the wine farmer, and of the co-operative cellar, as representing a joint group of wine-farmers, as the holder of a wine-farming licence, to sell their product to the individual consumer will be preserved. Admittedly the price is being loaded a little in order to eliminate unfair competition; the trade also has certain functions to perform, as was rightly said by the hon. member for Humansdorp. But we are grateful that this legislation recognizes that the wine farmer has and should retain the right to sell directly to the consumer. I think this right will be one of the best guarantees that the prices of wine products will not get out of hand in the retail trade, which is the kind of phenomenon referred to by the hon. member. He has all my sympathies in this respect, but I want to say this to him: The fact that the wine farmer has and will retain the right to sell privately to the ordinary consumer will be a guarantee that matters will not get out of hand, and another guarantee will be the fact that that part of the advertising work which will be financed out of this fund will also be aimed at educating and enlightening the consumer in regard to and making him familiar with and knowledgeable about wine products. If by means of this Research and Publicity Fund the consumer can gradually be taught to realize what he is buying, to judge whether the price he is paying is a fair one, and to judge the quality, or if the consumer can be taught that a certain price is the standard one for an ordinary good wine, and can be taught the names of the various products, then we shall eliminate the problem of excessive prices which has been mentioned by the hon. member. Then the consumer will realize that there is a screw loose when he is charged a ridiculous price, and he will refuse to pay it. In other words, the consumer will be taught to know when he is paying for snob value and when an attempt is being made to exploit his ignorance.

How does the consumer get to know that?

There are, of course, consumers who find it very hard to learn, who find it much easier to consume than to learn, but we hope that this publicity will take such a form that the hon. member for Somerset East will also be able to get the full benefit of it and will be able to learn which products are the best.

For the reasons mentioned I should like to grant my full support to this legislation and to congratulate the Minister on it.

I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this Bill in itself is certainly not an interesting document, but that the subject with which it deals is indeed a very interesting one. And if one wants to know how interesting it is, and how one can go into raptures about this subject, then the hon. member for Humansdorp, to whom we have listened with great pleasure, has illustrated it for us. He can entertain one for hours on the history of the product which forms the subject of this Bill.

As has been said, the K.W.V. is an enormous organization which exercises a controlling influence over viticulture in South Africa, and one always feels when a Bill requested by that organization comes before this House it should receive the support of the House in the normal course of events. This side of the House accordingly supports this Bill. Nevertheless there are a few matters which should perhaps be mentioned, and which have already been mentioned to some extent. I am thinking particularly of the question of research. The hon. member for East London (City) has pointed out that “research” should perhaps be defined in somewhat more general terms, and in addition I want to submit for the consideration of the hon. the Minister that as far as research is concerned, we should also use this fund to make provision for the necessary staff. I will be very glad to see, for example, that the fund can be used to enable the K.W.V. to send a young man who wants to make a study of these matters to university for the purpose. As I read the Bill, its provisions are not general enough to cover this aspect of the matter.

In the second place, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) spoke about the prices the consumer has to pay. I think what worried the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) was that in this Bill we merely have a repetition of what stands in the original controlling Act, and that is that the wine-farmer must be willing to have his prices controlled by means of a minimum and a quality price in the case of good wine, and to have a controlled price in the case of distilling wine as well. The wine-farmer as such is satisfied, but what worries particularly the consumer of good table wines is the fact that there is virtually no statutory control of the price the consumer is charged. In many cases the licence holder can push up his prices quite indiscriminately, and one finds the ridiculous situation that for a bottle of table wine one sometimes has to pay an amount for which one could have bought a five-gallon jar of wine from the farmer. In my opinion this matter is one to which the hon. the Minister should pay attention in his capacity as Minister of Marketing as well.

Then there is the levy as such. I quite appreciate why the K.W.V. want the levy, and I think we ought to extend our sincere congratulations to the wine-farmers of South Africa on the fact that they come to this House to ask for statutory permission to use their own funds to build up the large fund which is required not only to market their product but also to undertake research. We must appreciate the fact that this request is made by the farmers themselves. But what still causes me some concern—and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to reassure me in this regard—is that although I can see the justification for a levy on good wine, I think that the position is different in the case of distilling wine and brandy. Good wine makes no contribution whatsoever to what is known as the Surplus Fund, but I am not quite happy about the fact that statutory permission is being asked to impose a levy on distilling wine and brandy. After all, distilling wine and brandy contribute a considerable amount to the Surplus Fund which is under the control of the K.W.V. and its shareholders, and out of which any amount can be utilized for research and publicity at the discretion of the wine-farmers. I may be wrong, but I thought that, where the wine-farmer is a shareholder of the K.W.V., he should have the right to exercise complete control over his own funds, and that this House should not pass legislation to compel him to take certain steps. I realize that this is necessary as far as good wine is concerned. Apart from a contribution towards administrative expenses the producers of good wine make no contribution to the fund of the K.W.V., although they are the people who can draw the most benefit from research and from publicity. One is inclined to lose sight of the fact that the K.W.V. is concerned particularly with the sale of wines on the overseas market, where it not only is faced with the most difficult selling conditions, but also has to compete with the choice pro. ducts of the world, with the result that large funds are required to take care of the marketing there. One can therefore understand that the K.W.V. wants to build up such a fund so that it will be able to face world competition.

Then there is another little point that I may mention, and this is the fact that the wine-farmers will now be unable to sell bottled wine or wine in jars below the minimum price. I think it is Clause 9 that provides that once the wine-farmer has bottled his wine he is tied down to the minimum price. My own view is that the wine-farmer should be in a position to dispose of his product to the appreciative consumer as cheaply as possible. I do not think there is any wine-farmer that will bottle just any wine. He will only bottle his wine if he is able to produce quality wines, estate wines, and I believe that the consumer should not be forced to buy this product from the farmer at bottle-store prices. If the private consumer is able to get wine from the wine-farmer at slightly cheaper prices, the law should not prohibit him to do so, and I think the hon. the Minister should not go too far as regards the measure of protection he wants to afford to the trade. It is perfectly clear to me that the liquor trade is strong enough and large enough to look after its own interests, and I do not think the K.W.V. need go out of its way to afford protection to the trade.

Generally speaking, this is legislation on which we can congratulate the wine-farmers.

I think we had a very interesting speech from the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) in connection with the Bill. I do not know whether you will permit me to say so, but I noticed that when the hon. member for Humansdorp dwelt on wine it seemed almost as if hon. members’ mouths were watering. I want to thank the hon. member for the interesting exposition he gave. I would just like to tell him that I think the K.W.V. and the wine farmer, as well as the Department, are fully aware that the liquor trade plays a very important role in connection with the sale of their product. For that reason, of course, if any steps are taken to amend legislation, the interests of the industry as a whole will always be taken into consideration so that the best market for the product can be assured.

I want to thank hon. members in general for their reception of this Bill. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) spoke about the fixing of a maximum price in the trade. I think the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) has already to a large extent replied to the hon. member’s questions. There are various qualities of wine and there are various marks under which wine is sold by the wholesale trade. If particularly high prices are charged, it is not a function of my Department to control those prices. It has never been the function of the Department to fix the prices at which products can be sold. Here we are fixing a minimum price and the trade is entitled to buy any wine above that minimum price. It may just not buy wine below the minimum price. That is of course the reason why there are various prices for wines. Various marks are sold at various prices. Very often a specific type is much better than one which is sold at a higher price, but the latter has perhaps acquired a snob value and people like to have it on their table and therefore they pay more for it.

The hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) asked for what purpose the funds obtained through this levy could be used. I want to refer the hon. member to Clause 5 (2). It reads as follows—

In other words, this fund can be used for all the purposes which the hon. member foresees it can be used for. The hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) asked whether the K.W.V. would be entitled to use this fund for study bursaries. They are already doing so. They may do so from this fund, too, because any training of a person who will later do research is surely part of the research. This Bill does not prohibit it. The hon. member for Maitland particularly referred to the question of the increased price in so far as co-operative sellers are concerned, and he asked whether that was necessary and whether it would not make the wine more expensive. The wine farmer and his co-operative seller are treated on the same basis. The reason for these amendments is very important. When the K.W.V. fixes a minimum price, the trade must pay the producer that minimum price, whether it is a farmer or a co-operative seller, but if that seller can also sell to the trade in bottles and there is no other price for it, it can sell retail to the ordinary consumer at the same minimum price at which it sells wholesale to the trade. That is one of the problems which arose and to which the trade objected. They said it was unfair competition with them, and that is so. That is why these amendments have been introduced. Where there were applications by these co-operatives for licences to sell wine, the trade objected to this unjustifiable discrimination. The intention is not to load the minimum price to such an extent that it is equal to the bottle-store prices, but just to put the co-operative in the same position in which the trade is, which has to buy at the minimum price. I think the hon. member need not be afraid that this is a method of making wine dearer to the consumer.

How will the Minister explain the same position in respect of the estate wine farmer, who makes the best wine in South Africa?

The wine trade has no objection to that position remaining as it is.

The hon. member mentioned the levy and asked why it should apply also to wine intended for distillation purposes and brandy. In handling wine for distillation purposes the K.W.V. may use its own funds for the purposes prescribed in this Bill. There is nothing to prevent it from using certain amounts from that fund, but it will mean that only the producer who delivers wine for distillation purposes to the K.W.V. will then have to pay for this publicity and research, and the farmer who produces good wine will not pay for it because he is not obliged to sell to the K.W.V. Because it is felt that most of the publicity is given to good wine, this Bill is being introduced so as to impose an equal levy on the producers of the various types of wine, whether it is wine for distillation purposes or good wine. If one imposes the levy only on good wine, then the other types will not contribute to the fund, and there are many reasons why they should also make a contribution to publicity and research.

I want to thank hon. members for their support of this Bill and also because they still have so much confidence in the K.W.V. that they think the K.W.V. is the best body to control the wine trade. There are sometimes people who have doubts in regard to that matter, but I am glad we have unanimity on both sides of the House.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move— That the Bill be now read a third time.

There is no objection from this side of the House. This is a Bill which the Opposition has supported throughout and one which will make the probate of wills easier and less costly.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

This is a clause which provides for the advisory board in relation to the appointment of regional magistrates. The Minister explained during the second reading that this was a necessary and desirable step, to have a board consisting of various people to assist the Minister in making these appointments, and to advise him. One of the thoughts that strikes one in looking at the constitution of the board is that on the board we have the Secretary for Justice and the Deputy Secretary, and so many officers of the Department of Justice holding office as Attorney-General or Chief Magistrate or Under-Secretary for Justice as the Minister may from time to time appoint. I wonder whether the Minister will give an indication as to how in fact this will be constituted so far as appointments, say for the Transvaal or Natal, are concerned. Presumably if an appointment is to be made in Natal, the Attorney-General of Natal will be there.

That is behause he will know all about that particular magistrate’s work from the appeals that go through his office.

Provision is made only for representatives of the State only in so far as the prosecution side of the court’s practice is concerned. I appreciate that the Minister should not be asked to put a member of the Bar on the board, but when appointing members to the Bench the fact that one of the people Sitting in judgment is the State’s representative as far as prosecutions are concerned is an aspect which might perhaps be undesirable. What I want to suggest to the Minister is this, that in a province where a magistrate has served—and the regional magistrates are appointed from amongst magistrates with at least ten years’ experience—perhaps the best person to give the board and the Minister an idea as to what sort of judgments a particular magistrate gives is the Judge-President of that division, because it is to the Supreme Court that appeals and reviews will go. That person is possibly the best judge of the judicial capacity of the magistrate concerned and as to whether he is the sort of person who should be made a regional magistrate. Let us be frank about it. Regional magistrates to-day have perhaps more judicial responsibilities than any other judicial officer in the Republic, in the sense that to-day they do much of the work that judges used to do, and they do much more of that work than judges would ever be able to do. I wonder whether the Minister would not consider it advisable that this Board, in making appointments within any Provincial Division, should consult with the Judge-President before making an appointment.

I support the point of view of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) and I speak from my own experience not only as a practicing member of the profession, but before practising I spent a year as a Judge’s clerk in the Transvaal, and in that occupation one had going through one’s hands all the reviews which came to one’s particular Judge. It was quite noticeable at times how you found that one particular individual would have a great many more of his judgments upset on review than would another. That sort of information would of course be available to a Judge-President through the puisne Judges of his division. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Durban (North) has a great deal of substance in it. If there is consultation with a Judge-President by a body of this kind, they would get an unbiased opinion from an independent authority. Whilst the Attorney-General would, I have no doubt, also give an unbiased report as a member of such a board, and so would other officers holding his rank, his view, quite unconsciously, would no doubt be coloured by the position he holds and by the fact that he might consider that he would have to work with this man for the rest of his career. I think it would be a move on the safe side and it could only benefit the decisions made by such a board if there were to be consultations of some kind with the Judge-President of the division concerned. I think if one looks at the number of cases upset on review, the figures of which are available to the Minister but not to me, although in the past I have seen them, he will find that inevitably, seeing that we are dealing with human beings, there will be cases where this or that particular magistrate is upset time and again on review. In other words, he has taken the wrong view of the matter. That, I think, would be a most valuable guide to a body of this kind. Of course the Minister will appreciate that decisions made by a body of this kind have a tremendous impact on the community because they affect the lives of all of us.

The matter raised here by the two hon. members who took part in this debate is one which was thoroughly considered by the Department and myself. Like the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) I too was a Judge’s registrar in the Cape Supreme Court and I also have firsthand knowledge of this problem therefore. One could have appointed Judges to this committee if one wanted to bother them unnecessarily, but they have enough work as it is and it is not necessary at all to have Judges on this Committee because we have all the information in any event that they have at their disposal. Hon. members are aware of the fact that regional court sentences are not subject to automatic review. The sentence imposed by the man who is acting—and all these people are first tested in the regional courts before they are permanently appointed—can only be judged therefore when it is taken on appeal. There are numerous Judges who deal with these sentences; there is not one specific Judge therefore who can tell us how good this, that or the other magistrate is. We would be rendering the Judge a disservice in that he would first have to go and make inquiries with all the other Judges before he could express an opinion. But all the records go through the office of the Attorney-General and the people who are in the best position to know whether or not the Judges uphold the sentences imposed by an acting regional magistrate are the staff of the Attorney-General. If we want an opinion therefore with regard to an acting regional magistrate, the Attorney-General can give us first-hand information that Judge A found him to be a good magistrate, that Judge B thinks less of him and that Judge C set aside his sentences on so many occasions. Whatever information can be given by the Judges therefore can be obtained more fully through the Attorney-General. We cannot appoint all the Judges to this Committee, and to appoint only one Judge to the Committee would also be impossible.

With regard to ordinary magistrates, in so far as cases which are automatically reviewed are concerned, there the position is that one Judge assumes responsibility for that work for the week, and many weeks pass before he again does this sort of work. There again the position is that cases in which the sentences are altered on review come to the knowledge of the Department; the Department knows that the judgments of magistrate A are regularly set aside on review, or at any rate a large percentage of them, and that the judgments of magistrate B are regularly upheld by the Supreme Court. That information is available to us therefore. Moreover, before any Judge sets aside a sentence imposed by a magistrate when it comes before him on automatic review, it is more or less general practice that he first discusses the case with the Attorney-General, with the result that there too the Department has all the necessary information to be able to judge the capabilities of a magistrate. As far as the man’s qualifications are concerned, there need be no argument; he either has them or he does not have them. The only thing that one has to judge is his court personality and all the things that go hand in hand with it and in that regard the chief magistrate and the other magistrates serving on the committee will be able to express an opinion. After considering this matter very thoroughly I felt that since all this information was available to us in any case, it was not necessary to place this extra burden upon the Judges who have enough work to do as it is. After all, there is no screening as far as the appointment of a Judge is concerned whereas we have a host of people in this case screening the appointment of magistrates. I feel therefore that we have gone far enough here in evolving the best method of screening magisterial appointments.

One appreciates the Minister’s point that the information in regard to the number of judgments reversed on review will be available to the Attorneys-General and, therefore, also to the Secretary for Justice, but I do not think that is a fair way of judging such a magistrate. He may have been unlucky in having a number of judgments upset on a certain point.

That will be taken into account.

Why I suggested that the Judge-President should give a report is that he can assess the judicial capacity of a magistrate. He will be able, having regard to the way the magistrate gives his judgments, to decide whether he has a judicial approach which is suitable to such a responsible position as that of a regional magistrate. I do not suggest for a moment that a Judge should be appointed as a permanent member of the board. All I suggest is that, before coming to a decision, the board should ask the Judge-President of the division in which the candidate for appointment has served, for a report.

These matters are discussed by the Attorneys-General with the Judge-President at all times in practice.

I appreciate that. But it is very seldom that a Judge will make a remark about a magistrate unless he has really gone right off the rails. To call for such a report will not, I think, inconvenience the Judge-President and I think it can only help the board. I do not even ask the Minister to deal with it at this stage, but if that could become the practice I think it would help the board. The Minister says that nobody culls the Judges, but with a Judge one takes a chance. He may be a brilliant advocate and an awful Judge, and vice versa. But he is judged by his peers and in the end he is judged by the Minister of Justice because he does not take Silk until he has reached the top of his profession, and if he continues practising as a Silk he must be better than the average. Before he is appointed to the Bench the Minister consults with the other Judges through the Judge-President. The Minister is obviously guided by the views of the Judge-President as to the judicial capacity of that particular Silk. I think that is the very best judgment that could ever be given as to anyone’s judicial capacity, i.e., by the Judge-President. This is a most important appointment because there is no automatic review from the judgment of a regional magistrate. The sentence he may impose is anything up to three years, and these people do the bulk of the most important criminal work to-day. I put this forward as a suggestion for the help of the hon. the Minister who ultimately bears the responsibility.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move—

In introducing this Bill I do so fully realizing that there are many things which in the normal course of events are regarded as gambling and which in fact are not gambling, and hon. members who take part in this debate must please bear that in mind. One thing, for example, which is very definitely not gambling is to take part in elections! We can eliminate a great deal of unnecessary discussion on this Bill if we bear in mind what I said a moment ago. I also want to say right at the outset that this Bill is not a new creation of mine; indeed this Bill contains practically no new provisions. Hon. members or, at any rate, those who have read the Bill as far as page 11, will find, if they look at the Schedule to this Bill, that on pages 10 and 11, the Afrikaans text and the English text respectively, no fewer than 21 laws are mentioned which are now being repealed. The first of those measures dates back to 1860. I refer to the Act for Legalizing Art Unions. In the first instance, many of these old Acts are no longer available and, in the second instance, if they are available, they are only available in English, and on the other hand we have the position that each province had its own legislation in respect of gambling. This gave rise to a great deal of confusion; people did not know precisely what the law was, and the Department. therefore, considered it advisable to incorporate all the valid, legal provisions of the various provinces in one measure so that everybody will know precisely what the law is in respect of gambling. That is what we are now trying to do with this Bill which deals with lotteries, sports pools, games of chance and the keeping of pin-tables and other contrivances. I shall come back again to this question of pin-tables and other contrivances as I go on to explain the terms of this Bill. Sir, I do not think it is necessary for me to defend a Bill dealing with gambling. We have already discussed this matter on other occasions and we will have further opportunities to do so in the future. All we are dealing with here really is a measure which can be described as a consolidating measure since it consolidates the existing ordinances and laws which apply to the various provinces. I think my only task therefore is to explain this Bill clause by clause so as to give hon. members clarity as to what is contemplated here.

Clause 1, of course, contains the usual definitions; it sets out the definitions which are necessary for the purposes of the implementation of the proposed legislation. The definition of “lottery” and “game of chance” are particularly important because hon. members will observe that the Minister is being granted the power to extend the meaning of these expressions from time to time by notice in the Government Gazette. This is necessary in order to enable the Minister from time to time to adapt the provisions of the Act to circumstances which can hardly be foreseen at this juncture. There may be certain hon. members who will say that they are not prepared to give these powers to the Minister, and if there are such hon. members I want to tell them in advance that this provision is being inserted in this measure not because I have any desire that that type of power should be given to me as Minister or to any future Minister, but because practical experience has taught us that it is almost impossible to apply this Act effectively unless the Minister has such power. This is not a new principle; it is a principle which has been contained in this legislation ever since 1860. We are merely drafting it in different language here. I have already referred hon. members to the oldest of these laws, the Act for Legalizing Art Unions. To be perfectly honest, I did not even know that such an Act existed. When I first heard the name of this Act I did not know what it was all about. It might perhaps be interesting just to mention here that in terms of that Act persons, clubs and organizations were given the right to acquire paintings and to raffle them amongst their members. As a matter of fact, they were the only people who had this right. I was not even aware that such associations ever existed. The object originally was to encourage art. Apparently the promoters did not have very much success in achieving this object because I cannot remember ever having heard of such organizations. That old Act has been on the Statute Book all these years and it still applies at the present time. But the point is that we find that this principle was embodied for the first time in Section 1 of that Act which was passed as far back as 1860. Amongst other things, the Act provided that these Art Unions first had to submit their constitutions to the Governor for approval before they could be proclaimed as associations entitled to conduct such lotteries. The section reads—

This is clearly the same principle in different wording. These associations had to have their constitutions approved by the Governor, and once the constitution of an association was approved, it was regarded as an association that was entitled to conduct a lottery; its constitution still remained the same and under that same constitution the power was given to the Governor to suspend the constitution if he thought that they were conducting activities other than those strictly provided for in the Act. Hon. members will see therefore that this principle was contained as far back as 1860 in that particular Act, and they will find the same principle embodied in all legislation of this kind. Even in those days the Governor did not say to such an association, “The Court must first find that you are conducting something which was not contemplated,” or “1 require you to submit this, that or the other proof;” the Governor had the discretionary power, depending upon the circumstances, to suspend the constitution and to forbid these people to conduct such a lottery. But hon. members will find this principle not only in the Act of 1960; they will also find it in subsequent enactments; they will find it in the Natal Act and they will find it in the Act of 1938. This principle was embodied in all these Acts because experience had shown that it was impossible to combat lotteries unless one gave this discretionary power to the authorities. In 1860 this discretionary power was given to the Governor and it is still necessary to-day to allow the Minister a certain amount of discretion in this connection.

Clause 2 is designed to forbid participation in any lottery or sports pool or the making available of any place for the purposes of a lottery or sports pool or the sale or acquisition of lottery or sports pool tickets. In view of the fact that many lotteries and sports pools, although really conducted outside of the Republic, have a large following in the Republic, it is necessary also to forbid participation in such lotteries and sports pools. It is very difficult to prove that a ticket which purports to be a lottery or sports pool ticket is in fact such a ticket. A presumption is now being created therefore that a ticket which purports to be a lottery or sports pool ticket shall be deemed to be such a ticket unless the contrary is proved. Hon. members will agree with me that this does not place an unnecessary or an unduly heavy onus of proof on the person concerned. All we are saying here is that the ticket shall be deemed to be what it appears to be at its face value. The occupiers of places where lotteries or sports pools are controlled or conducted can hardly say in all honesty, having regard to the activities which usually go hand in hand with such affairs, that they were not aware of what was taking place on their premises. The onus of proof is therefore also being placed on such persons to prove that they had nothing to do with the management or control of lotteries or sports pools conducted on. their premises. I should like bon. members to understand perfectly clearly that the onus rests on the State to prove that a lottery was conducted on the premises, and it is only when the State has discharged that onus that the onus is transferred to the manager or the person in control to prove that he had no knowledge of it. If he proves that, then he is acquitted, and if he is unable to prove it, then, of course, he will be found guilty. But I do not think it is unreasonable to expect the person who is charged to prove that he was not aware of what was going on in his own home or on his own premises.

Then I come to Clause 3. Lotteries and sports pools, generally speaking, receive great publicity and in order to eradicate this evil root and branch it is necessary also to forbid the publication of notices and advertisements with regard to lotteries and sports pools. I think that goes without saying and it is unnecessary for me to give any further explanation in that regard. It would be of little avail to forbid the printer and owner of a newspaper or other periodical to publish information with regard to lotteries and sports pools if we allowed such information to be disseminated in some other printed document. Clause 4 is designed therefore to prohibit the dissemination of such information. Foreign lotteries and sports pools, as hon. members are aware and as I have already indicated, have a large following in the Republic. The suppression of lotteries and sports pools would therefore be useless if it was confined only to lotteries and sports pools conducted within the Republic. Activities in connection with foreign lotteries and sports pools, in so far as those activities are conducted within the Republic. are also being prohibited therefore.

Clause 6 places a prohibition on the playing of any game of chance for stakes, and nobody will be permitted to allow any place under his control to be used for this purpose. No person shall be allowed to visit any such place with the object of playing any such games. We do find, however, that games of chance are played on occasion in private places or clubs, not so much with a view to gambling but rather for the purpose of entertainment. This prohibition will therefore not apply to such occasions but if it is proved that such places are habitually used for the playing of games of chance for stakes, then the players, etc. will still be subject to this prohibition. I should like hon. members to understand this provision very clearly. In terms of this provision it will not be a contravention for an hon. member to play a game of bridge with friends for sixpence per 100 points; it will be no offence under this measure. It will be no offence for old ladies to play a game of rummy for a tickey per 100 points; it only becomes an offence if a private dwelling is used as a gambling house by inviting people—and this is the crux of the matter—other than the personal friends of the owner, to come and play there. In other words, just as a private dwelling may sometimes be used by persons for immoral purposes, so too a private dwelling may be used—and there have in fact been such cases —as a gambling house and not as a private dwelling. That is where the great difference lies in this connection, and it is in that light that hon. members must view this particular Clause.

We find in many cases that gamblers take precautionary steps with a view to ensuring that they will have ample warning of impending police raids. By the time the police raid the premises there is no game in progress and the police are powerless to act even if they find abundant evidence of the presence of objects normally used in gambling. This Bill provides that the finding of objects such as dice, balls and counters, for example, at any place or on any person shall be prima facie evidence that the person in control of the place concerned permitted the playing of a game of chance for stakes and that any person found at such place was playing such game and was visiting such place with the object of gambling. Hon. members will appreciate that police action will be frustrated if the police are obstructed or delayed in entering premises in which gambling is taking place. An innocent person has no reason for employing such tactics. It is not unreasonable therefore to place the onus of proof provided for in subclause 4 on persons in control of such places. It is particularly difficult to prove that a game of chance was played for stakes. A presumption is therefore being created here that such a game was in fact played for stakes. It should not be difficult for an innocent person to discharge this onus. Furthermore, it is also necessary to place the onus of proof upon persons referred to in sub-clauses 6 and 7 of Clause 6. otherwise it will seldom if ever be possible to take effective steps against them. The provisions of the sub-clauses in question are in line with existing provisions and they are not excessively onerous.

Then I come to Clause 7. Pin-tables and other contrivances of a similar nature are being used on a large scale for gambling purposes. It seems to be the youth in particular who fall prey to this type of exploitation. I just want to say that if this Bill is passed there will be many cafe owners who are going to be very annoyed and who are going to submit representations with regard to these pin-tables. Sir. I make no apology for taking advantage of this opportunity to say to the House that I am going to go out of my way to get rid of every pin-table in every cafe as far as it lies within my power to do so. I have seen children standing in cafes for hours on end wasting their time, both before and after school hours. In some cases they do not waste their money because there is no charge for playing the game, but they stand for hours in these cafes wasting their time playing the “one-eyed bandit” and goodness knows what other games.

“One-armed bandit.”

I notice that hon. members are well-informed on this matter and I am glad to have their assistance in this connection. Mr. Speaker I personally hate this sort of thing and if representations are made to me in this connection by hon. members on the other side they will get no sympathy at all from me. I do not think it is necessary to have these contrivances in our cafes; I do not think it is necessary that children should be enticed in this way to waste their time and money; I do not think it is necessary that this kind of temptation should be placed in the way of children. Cafe owners who keep these contrivances in their cafes do so purely and simply in order to attract customers to their cafes; I say that if they want to attract customers they should find other ways of doing so.

Will this Act come into operation immediately?

It will come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation.

If you remove these contrivances the children will waste their money on cigarettes.

Well, it is for the parents then to take the necessary steps. This is a matter over which parents have no control whatsoever, and I think that we as a House have a positive duty in that connection.

We have legislation already in terms of which steps can be taken against this evil, but it has not been possible in the past to apply the existing legal provisions effectively enough to be able to cope with this evil. As things stand at present the Minister, by notice in the Government Gazette—this is not a new principle either; it is an old principle which is already contained in the old 1938 Act—may declare that any person who allows anybody else to use or to operate a specified pin-table or other contrivance, shall be deemed to be conducting a lottery. Experience has taught us, however, that the existing legal provisions, in spite of such a declaration, are easily evaded. Clause 7 now gives extended powers to the Minister. What is of particular importance is the fact that the Minister may now prohibit the keeping of all pin-tables at places specified by him. In this way it will be possible to exercise some control over owners or persons in charge of well-known gambling places where pin-tables are used for the purpose of gambling. Moreover, it will also be possible in the future to bring within the scope of the relevant prohibition all pin-tables or contrivances which are similar to or which have anything in common with pin-tables or contrivances forbidden by the Minister. Gamblers, and particularly the keepers of gambling contrivances, do everything in their power not to be caught red-handed. It is often difficult to obtain the necessary evidence against such persons, even though one has very good grounds for suspecting that gambling took place. It is absolutely essential to create the presumption, which is provided for in subclause 2, so as to be able to take effective action against those who ignore the law. The relevant provisions are more or less in line with those contained in Clause 6.

The penal provisions prescribed in Clause 8 are not excessive and unnecessary for the effective implementation of the provisions of this Bill. The granting of jurisdiction to magistrates’ courts to try offenders charged under this Act will help us to dispose of gambling cases expeditiously. As a matter of fact there are very few, if any, gambling cases which are so serious that the offenders have to be tried by a Supreme Court. If such a step is justified by the circumstances then the trial, notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 9, will take place before the Supreme Court in any event. As hon. members will observe from Clause 10, the legislative powers granted to the provinces in terms of the Financial Relations Amendment Act of 1945 in respect of the licensing of totalisators, control over horse and other racing and betting, are not affected by the provisions of this Bill. This is a task which was entrusted to the various provinces by Parliament in 1945, and I would ask hon. members please not to fall into the temptation of raking up this matter again, if they wish to attack the Bill, because in point of fact it has nothing to do with this Bill.

The laws specified in the Schedule (Clause 11) now become redundant and are therefore being repealed. The administration of the territory of South West Africa is desirous of having this Act applied to the territory as well. Section 35 (Clause 13) of the Post Office Act, 1958, which grants certain powers to the Postmaster-General in respect of postal documents relating to lotteries and indecent or obscene matter, is now being extended, with the permission of the Postmaster-General, to postal documents relating to sports pools, so as to be able to combat gambling effectively. In view of the fact that certain notices, particularly those in terms of Clause 71 have to be prepared so as to be available when the Act comes into operation, it will not be possible for this Act to come into operation on the date of its promulgation.

Those are the principles of this Bill, and I move.

The hon. the Minister started his address in a jovial mood and again referred to the election, which he said was not a gamble and then he went on to tell the House that this was really a very mild Bill, something that we are not used to getting from the Minister, and he said that it was really just a consolidating measure. Sir, it is not a consolidating measure as the Minister would like us to believe. He knows very well that the clause to which we object mainly is the definition clause in Clause 1, where “game of chance” is defined—

He said that in effect this provision or a similar provision was contained in old laws, including the oldest of the lot, the Act for Legalizing Art Unions, which he said he did not know about until he saw it mentioned here. I must say that I did not know about it either. He pointed out that in that old Cape Act the Governor was given the right to authorize the formation of societies for conducting lotteries in order to support the arts. Sir, I submit that that is quite different from what the hon. the Minister now proposes.

The principle is the same.

Under that Act the Governor had to approve the constitution of the club, but once he approved of the constitution and was satisfied with the object of the club and the way in which they were going to run their lotteries, they were allowed to run lotteries. The Act did not provide that the Governor had to say what form the lottery should take.

He could cancel the licence at any time.

The principle in this Bill is to put a stop to all games of chance and lotteries, but the principle of that old Act was to allow games of chance.

But the Governor had the power to stop it.

The object of that Act was just the opposite of the object in this Bill. The object was to ensure that lotteries were under some sort of control. The Minister has not been able to refer to any other old Act which defined “game of chance” as he is defining it in this Bill. I submit that if there were such an old Act which gave any Minister or any other authority power to define “game of chance” the Minister would have referred us to that particular Act.

I said you would find it in the 1939 Act.

If that is so why did the courts decide in the past what a game of chance was? In the past when anybody wanted to run a lottery or take part in a game of chance the question he had to consider was what the courts had decided were games of chance. Now the criterion will be what will the Minister of Justice decide is a game of chance; what will the Minister promulgate as being a game of chance. Sir, we are taking a chance with the Minister. The Minister may be a prude and stop any form of entertainment of that nature. On the other hand the Minister may be very broadminded. If I were the Minister I am certain I would allow more than the Minister would. For instance, the Minister tells us he is prejudiced against pin-tables. I am not going to support pin-tables but he says he detests them and that he will do all he can to stop pin-tables. He says he does not want children to waste their time and money at pin-tables. I do not quarrel with the question of pin-tables. I personally am not a supporter of pin-tables but when it was pointed out to him that they would spend their money on something else the Minister said it was for the parents to stop them. If that is the line he takes then it is up to the parents to stop the children from playing at pin-tables too. The Minister himself is now going to decide what he would like his children to do: he is going to decide what is proper and what is not, act accordingly and stop games which other members of his party may perhaps not stop.

I say that has always been the position.

But I say it has not. In the past the courts have decided …

Have you read the Act of 1927?

The Minister cannot deny the fact that the courts have in the past decided what games of chance were.

The Governor-General has decided.

The Minister says the Governor-General has decided. The old Act the Minister talks about has become abrogated by disuse.

No, No. It was stipulated again in the 1927 Act for one and repeated in Acts thereafter.

Only in respect of Natal in 1927.

Quite. But what is good enough for Natal is good enough for the Republic.

Can the Minister tell me of any Act in the Cape, except the old Act he quoted …

I am telling you Act No. 1 of 1927.

That did not apply to the Cape.

It applied to Natal and surely Natal is part of the Republic.

Only since Wednesday.

Why must a liberal province like the Cape have the laws of Natal foist upon it? It is no excuse to say it was a provision in a Natal law. If there is some provision in all these laws which he is now repealing which he wants to include in this new law, this new law which is going to apply to the whole Republic, why did he not take over a very sound provision from Ordinance 13 of 1937, as amended by Ordinance 19 of 1952 which applies to South West Africa. In terms of that South West African Ordinance lotteries can be conducted on the authority of the Administrator. It lays down under what terms. Section 3 (1) reads as follows—

1. (1) No person shall organize or conduct a lottery in the Territory except under the authority of the Administrator in writing under the hand of the Secretary.
2. (2) The Administrator may give the authority when satisfied (a) that a substantial portion of the proceeds will be employed for educational, charitable, athletic or other similar purposes or for the support of hospitals and religious institutions or for organic farming interests and such deserving causes as the Administrator may, in his discretion, think fit.

It goes on to lay down other conditions.

The whole of that ordinance is being repealed.

I know. Why did he only take over the restrictive provision from a Natal Ordinance? Why did he not include this provision in the South West African Ordinance in his Bill? He can’t justify this Bill by merely saying this provision applied in some other province. That does not justify him applying this measure to the whole country.

Our main objection to this Bill is this definition clause, the definition of “game of chance”. It is because of the power which is being given to the Minister that we oppose this Bill. We know people differ; people in the same political groups differ as to whether lotteries and games of chance should be allowed. Gambling should be left to the conscience of the individual just as we leave questions of religion and liquor to the conscience of the individual. I say gambling should be treated likewise. It should be treated on a non-party basis. I am positive that probably more of the members opposite support gambling and lotteries than are opposed to it.

Where are they?

Look in their pockets and you will find lottery tickets there.

The clause which deals with the question of buying lottery tickets goes far too far. Clause 2 (2) reads as follows—

The Minister knows that you get football clubs and other organisations wanting money for some particular purpose. What do they do? They issue a ticket—the Nationalist Party does it the same as our Party does it—for 2/6d marked “Donation”. It has a number on it; a prize is offered … [Interjections.] Supposing a detective comes along and says: “I know this ticket is marked ‘Donation’; but I know it is for a lottery”.

Then he must prove it.

Not necessarily. It may be presumed to be a ticket in a lottery or sports pool.

You have not read the Bill; read the clause.

There have been instances where a member of the Police Force has suspected a lottery. I am not talking about the Durban case. I am talking about other cases. It happens all over the country. The policeman walks into the office where he knows they are running some pool, some lottery, and that they are collecting money under the guise of donations. He takes the funds that have been collected and the list of names. Will anybody holding such a ticket be guilty of an offence?

No. Read the clause.

Suppose it is proved that it is a lottery then 2 (d) covers him because it says “… if he has in his possession … any ticket in a lottery or sports pool”. If he has a ticket in his possession and any police officer or detective has already satisfied himself that a lottery is being conducted he is guilty of an offence. Supposing a friend or relative sends me a lottery ticket from Rhodesia and it is found in my possession—I have not asked for it—have I then committed an offence? I submit that this clause goes far too far but we can deal with that in the Committee Stage.

The same applies in the case of an uncut diamond.

No, Sir. If I have an uncut diamond in my pocket somebody must have sneaked it in there …

Somebody can post it to you.

I shall go to the Minister and ask him to dispose of it for me. People differ, as a matter of conscience, whether or not gambling should be allowed, which is not so with dealing in uncut diamonds.

In dealing with this principle in this Bill at the second reading it does not matter whether or not you agree with gambling. I submit everybody should oppose this Bill in its present form because of the definition of “game of chance”.

How would you define it?

I would leave it to the courts to do so as they have done in the past. But I want to give that hon. member a chance to help me to define it. I know he feels the same way as I do; he is a lawyer. I know he feels that gambling in some form should be allowed. He is a broad-minded person.

Do not come to conclusions.

I want to give him a chance, and therefore I move—

If the Minister accepts this amendment of mine and appoints a Select Committee of both sides of the House, the Select Committee will thrash out the matter and produce a measure which will satisfy those who are strictly opposed to gambling and those who are not so strictly opposed to it. There should be some provision for authority to be given by the Minister or by the Administrator, as was contained in the South West African Ordinance, to allow some form of gambling. I think institutions which run on a non-profit basis should be allowed to run lotteries in order to collect funds as was provided in that Ordinance. On the other hand the Select Committee may decide, on the evidence submitted to it, that even that should not be allowed. But I do not think it should be left to the Minister himself, or to any Minister who follows him, to decide what is a game of chance.

Tell me, have you read any of the Acts?

I do not care what the Minister says, but he is taking power to apply it to the whole of the Republic; he is taking provisions from ordinances. …

Which existed before.

Some of them existed before in different provinces, but he is now applying it to the whole of the Republic. He is making everybody subject to that law.

Other members will deal with it, but it applied to the whole of the Union, as far as the Minister was concerned.

Will the Minister tell me why it was left to the courts to decide? We want the law to remain as it was instead of leaving it to one man to decide what a game of chance is.

The main objection of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) is to the definition of “game of chance”. He says that the Minister was wrong in saying that this measure merely consolidates already existing laws. I want to point out to the hon. member that when they were in power in 1939 they passed a measure to amend the Gambling Act. I refer to Act No. 5 of 1939, in which it is provided that—

1. (a) that any person who, within the Union, allows any person to use or operate, or exposes for use or operation by any person, any particular pin-table, machine or contrivance, named or described in the notice, or any pin-table, machine or contrivance of a make or type, so named or described, shall be deemed to conduct a lottery; or
2. (b) that any particular game or scheme named or described in the notice, or any game or scheme of a type so named or described, whether it be played or conducted within the Union or elsewhere, shall be deemed to be a lottery.

This is nothing new therefore. The hon. member says that Act 28 of 1860 has been abrogated through disuse. That is not true either,, because, in terms of Act No. 1 of 1927, the powers granted to the Governor-General under the Act of 1860 were also applied to Natal. …

Only to Natal.

That is quite correct, but Natal is a portion of the Republic. If an Act still applies to a portion of the Republic, one cannot put forward the plea that it has been abrogated through disuse. That is what I want to prove here. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories is entirely wrong in saying that the Minister is wrong and that that Act has long ago been abrogated through disuse.

It amends a Natal Act.

Forget about the Natal Act; think of the 1939 Act.

According to the hon. member Natal was not a portion of the Republic, but according to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett), it has been a portion of the Republic since last Wednesday. This Natal Ordinance was amended in 1927 in terms of this Statute, and there can be no question therefore of abrogation through disuse; the period is too short. Sir, it is unnecessary for me to take this matter any further.

As far as pin-tables are concerned, the Minister has the power to prohibit their use. This is not a new provision which is now being inserted in the Act for the first time. I fully agree with the hon. the Minister that we should wipe out these pin-tables. I had occasion last year to go and have a cup of tea in a cafe in which there were a few of these pin-tables. Students were playing there, and one of them wasted 25 cents within the space of 15 minutes. Sir, we are constantly told by hon. members on the other side that we are doing nothing to reduce the cost of living. For my part I Shall be very pleased if the hon. the Minister will outlaw these pin-tables as soon as possible, because people are wasting valuable time and money there. We have a shortage of manpower, and manpower is being wasted there.

What does a person do when he goes to the cinema?

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories also mentioned the case of a lottery ticket which may be sent to him by a friend and which is then found in his pocket; he says that he will then be guilty of an offence. That is not how I read the Act. The onus still rests on the State to prove that you bought that ticket or that you acquired it with the object of participating in a lottery. If the State makes that allegation, you can prove the contrary by producing the letter under cover of which the lottery ticket was sent to you by your friend. You can simply say that you have no intention of participating in the lottery; that you are not going to send money for the ticket. Would you then be guilty of an offence? Most certainly not. I also want to deny emphatically that the National Party sells tickets in order to collect funds. We no longer do so, Mr. Speaker. The National Party does not participate in lotteries. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories says that the National Party sells tickets to people in a guessing competition, and that the winner is then given a motor-car.

There is no need to guess the results; we know the results.

I just want to have it on record that we do not participate in lotteries.

Sir, there was a case in Pretoria recently—I do not know whether it is still sub judice— where the secretary of the Gen. Hertzog Fund was prosecuted. …

I do not know whether judgment has already been given.

In that case I would rather not discuss it. I feel that in no circumstances can we support the amendment of the hon. member for Transkeian Territories that this measure be referred to a Select Committee. All the provisions contained in this Bill are already contained in previous laws. This is nothing but a consolidating measure. I do not see why we should waste the time of hon. members and the time of this House by referring this Bill, which is nothing but a consolidating measure, to a Select Committee. We welcome it. There is just one other thing I want to say. I wonder, Sir, whether the hon. the Minister cannot bring about a slight amendment to Clause 3. This is the clause which deals with the placing of advertisements. I have often seen the results of football and soccer matches in England published in one of our local Sunday newspapers. The newspaper gives a whole list of matches which are to be played the following Saturday. Those results are published in the newspaper for no other purpose than to enable persons in the Republic to take part in the soccer pools in England. I wonder whether it is not possible for the hon. the Minister so to amend that clause that newspapers in the Republic will be prohibited from placing such advertisements. For the rest I wholeheartedly support this Bill. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has introduced it.

The hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) says in the first place that it will be a waste of time to refer this Bill to a Select Committee because everything contained in this Bill is already contained in the law of the land in one place or another. But the hon. member himself demonstrated that this was not true. The hon. member dealt with two Acts, to one of which the hon. Minister had referred. He dealt with the 1939 Act in the Transvaal and the 1927 Act relating to Natal. What I want to point out to the hon. member is this: The Natal Act gives the Governor-General the power to declare what is and what is not a game of chance.

The same as this Bill.

Yes, but the big difference is that it does not give the Governor-General the power to decide what is a lottery. This is the difference. Exactly the same objection applies in the case of the 1939 Act. It gives similar powers to the Governor-General in respect of the Transvaal Ordinance but it does not give him the power to determine what is and what is not a lottery.

That is in respect of the Lottery Prohibition Act.

Oh no. I am sorry it is not there. Had it been there it would have been here as well. The 1939 Act goes even further; it puts some limitation on the Governor-General’s power to do this. It says—

That is a limitation which is placed upon the Minister.

That limitation is not worth the paper it is written on. That is why it is not necessary to repeat it.

That is not altogether true, Sir. If in fact something was declared to be a game of chance and you could show to a court that no reasonable man could ever have thought there was an element of chance at all then, of course, one could have that promulgation upset.

You see, Sir, this is not a consolidating Bill in the first place. The Minister has indicated the attitude he and his party officially takes to it. But I wonder whether the hon. the Minister really reflects the views of his party members. I wonder if a secret ballot were held amongst members of this House, if we would find that there were a number of people in favour of a lottery?

Keep on wondering.

Yes, of course, I will keep on wondering. Because the hon. member, unless it was in secret, would not vote. The Government would not give its members a chance to have a secret vote.

Your candidate in North West Rand stood for a lottery and he lost heavily.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that his candidate in Ixopo also stood for a State lottery and he also lost heavily. So I do not think that proves anything at all. He was not a normal member of the Nationalist Party, I must give him that; he also stood for parental choice in education and he also stood for television. The fact of the matter is that something like a secret vote will never occur. It will never occur because it just might disclose what I am saying. So long as this thing is presented by the Minister of Justice to this House, or any Minister, they will go into the kraal like a lot of sheep and bleat when the time comes. Because it is a Government measure. This is not the sort of measure to be a Government measure in my submission. It is a matter for the conscience of the people. This is a matter for the conscience of the people: it is a matter for the conscience of every member to decide. It is a matter of morality, which the Government is not the guardian of. Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for the Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) pointed out, this is not the reason why we are opposing this Bill in principle at this stage. We are opposing the Bill in principle because of the new—I wish to repeat that—the new powers that are being given to the hon. the Minister which will enable him to declare anything to be a lottery or a game of chance, whether it is a game of chance or a lottery or not. Whether it is in fact a game of chance or a lottery or not, he will have the power to say that it is.

What would you call bridge?

When I play bridge it is a game of skill. I appreciate that when the hon. member plays it, is is probably a game of chance. But I do not mind him playing bridge. As I was saying, that is the essence of our objection to this Bill. As the hon. member for Transkeian Territories pointed out, this Minister—or any Minister that may succeed him—will have the power to determine for the people what a lottery is, whether a game or scheme is a lottery or whether it is not. Under this Bill he will have the power to do so. It does not help the Minister to say that he would not declare something a lottery which is obviously not a lottery.

The Minister will only have the power in conjunction with what goes before.

Oh no. Sir.

Of course.

No. If the Minister’s power mentioned in the second part of paragraph 2 of clause 1 were related to the first part then in my submission there would be no need for the second part to be inserted at all. Because the Minister would then have defined what a lottery is. A lottery is defined in the Bill and it also includes “every scheme, arrangement, system, plan or device … which the Minister may from time to time by notice in the Gazette declare to be a lottery.” Now, Mr. Speaker, if this restricts the Minister’s power, then the second part of paragraph 2 of Clause 1 would be unnecessary. If the Minister is not going to declare anything to be a lottery which does not fall within this definition of a lottery, then he does not need the power. All he has to do is to state what a lottery is so that everyone will know what it is. The law will then be certain, the public will know where they stand, they will know how to conduct their affairs, how to conduct their church bazaars and their fund-raising and political activities, just as they know to-day what a lottery is.

I am constrained to say that the Minister causes one to have misgivings as to what the Government may have in mind in respect of the prohibition of things which may or may not be lotteries or which may savour of lotteries, for instance things that we do in Natal that is not done in any other province. I am referring to the Jackpot in Natal which could be construed, if one had the attitude of this hon. the Minister towards pin-tables, as a lottery.

Surely you know that that is excluded in the Act.

Why does the Minister say that?

Because of the provisions in the 1945 Act.

Why is it excluded?

Because it is a provincial matter.

Say for instance the Minister wished to declare the Jackpot competition in Natal to be a lottery, then there is nothing in this Bill to prevent him doing it. This is later legislation whereby the Minister is given a complete discretion to decide what a lottery is. The off-course tote system in operation in Natal does not function anywhere else in South Africa. Many people participate in the Jackpot competition and every week each participant pays 50c. I must confess I do it myself on every opportunity that is available to me, but without any success unfortunately! This scheme is available to the Natal public and, to be quite frank. Sir, you just write down four numbers and trust to luck. I do not regard it as a matter of skill myself. But the competition is open to the public and at the moment it is not a lottery in terms of the definition of the law. If the Minister wants to leave this matter in the hands of the provinces then he must define the law so that the provinces can work within the ambit of the law and not within the ambit of the Minister’s discretion. When we talk about consolidating our laws, then for goodness sake …

Is the hon. member prepared to propose an amendment to the effect that the Natal Jackpot should be abolished?

Of course I am not prepared to do that. The Jackpot is something that is enjoyed by the people of Natal; they like it and, as I indicated. I also like it. Whenever I am in Natal I enter for the Jackpot every Saturday. I like it. But I am not disturbing my soul thereby, nor does it undermine the morals of the people of Natal. When the hon. the Minister and hon. members talk of consolidation, what are we consolidating? On what are we putting the stamp of 1965? I refer the Minister to the schedule on page 10 of the Bill where reference is made to the Cape Act 28 of 1960—more than one hundred years ago. Now it is proposed to place the indelible stamp of this Parliament upon something which reflected the morals of 1860! For what purpose. Mr. Speaker? Who wants it? In any case, the 1860 Act was passed in order to legalize art unions and not for the prohibition of art unions. In Natal there is the Act of 1878; regarding Free State legislation, reference is made to a certain chapter of the Law Book, and I think that was probably also during the 1870’s; in the Transvaal we have legislation of the year 1889.

What is the Minister really trying to do here? This is not a consolidating measure. This is putting the stamp on something this Government does not like—in the same way as it does not like television and many other things. The stamp of prohibition is being placed on it, and that because the Government thinks that the people of South Africa are of such poor substance that they will become incurably depraved by reason of these indulgences.

The Minister has said that he is going to do his best to get rid of pin-tables, to get rid of every single one. We do not want the hon. the Minister to tell us what his intentions in this respect are. We do not want him to tell the House how strong he is going to be about it. What we do want the Minister to tell us is whether a man will know to-morrow whether he can have a pin-table or not when this Bill becomes law. That is the function of this House, that is the function of this Minister and that is the function of this Parliament. Our function is to make the laws of South Africa. The Minister had indicated that he will do his best to get rid of every pin-table. If that is his attitude and if that is the honest approach of this Government and every member here, why then does he not put a clause in the Bill saying that to have a pin-table is unlawful? Let me ask the Minister how on earth he is going to distinguish between one pin-table and another, between one that has lights and another that does not have lights. When I was a child there was a game called bagatelle. I do not know whether it is still played, but it is exactly the same thing as a pin-table. It is in fact a pin-table. One can buy it in shops, it is sold in children’s departments of shops. What is the difference between a child of seven years playing a game of bagatelle and somebody playing a pin-table where he cannot gamble? A person can gamble if he wants to, in any event. How is the hon. the Minister going to decide between what is a game of chance and what is not?

I remember that the Minister spoke about one-arm bandits. Well, I recollect a case that was heard in the Peninsula where a person was charged under laws relating to games of chance in that he had a machine which was alleged to be a game of chance, namely a one-arm bandit. It is a machine that has a lever and when one pulls it three wheels revolve and through the three little windows one watches the wheels revolve whilst trying to stop them so that a combination of three cherries or three oranges, etc. is obtained, resulting in the machine discharging varying amounts of coins, depending on what combination was obtained. The machine was an exhibit in the case, it was put up in court and the presiding magistrate left the bench to try out the machine. He pulled the lever, pressed the buttons, hit the jackpot combination, returned to the bench, ruled that the machine was not a game of chance, and acquitted the accused. This is the sort of thing that happens.

That case occurred in Pretoria.

What is the Minister’s attitude, Mr. Speaker? Does he like pin-tables or does he not like pin-tables? We are surely entitled to know. The Minister seeks to obtain the power to decide which pin-table will be a game of chance and which pin-table will not fall under that category. Now, how is the Minister going to distinguish between one pin-table and another? If the Minister does not want pin-tables, then why on earth does he not say so and put a provision in the Bill, •declaring pin-tables to be illegal? It will be much better for everyone concerned in that people will know just where they stand. Then people will not be subject to all the vagaries of the hon. the Minister, subject to his various attitudes at varying times regarding various instruments.

The question of Jackpots in Natal is something very close to the people of that province, Mr. Speaker. They enjoy taking part in the competition, and they are not happy to see the Minister assuming powers under this Bill whereby he could declare the Jackpot to be a lottery.

And I say that that is not so.

Does the Minister agree that he does have the power in terms of paragraph 2 of Clause 1 to declare something to be a lottery which in fact has no relation whatever to our normal conception of what a lottery is?

I say that it does not apply to horse racing and its results at all.

Why not?

Because of the 1945 Act.

But this is later legislation. When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will be a later Act, and if it in fact is in conflict with the 1945 Statute— and I submit that in this respect it may well be—then this Act will by implication repeal any restriction there may have been. This is a basic and fundamental principle, and the hon. the Minister as a lawyer will understand that.

Clause 10 of the Bill deals with restrictions.

Clause 10 does not say anything of the sort in relation to a contrivance such as the Jackpot. The Jackpot is exactly the same sort of thing as a sports pool. In a sports pool competition one has to guess which teams are going to draw. In the Jackpot one has to guess which horse will be the winner in each of the last four races. The hon. member for Prinshof referred to Clause 10, which reads as follows—

1. (a) shall be construed as restricting the powers conferred under paragraph 7 of the First Schedule or paragraph 12 of the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945 (Act No. 38 of 1945);
2. (b) shall apply in relation to any lottery or sports pool in respect of which no subscription is to be made.

So far as the provinces are concerned, so far as the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act is concerned, the province has the power regarding horse racing.

And everything incidental thereto.

No, Sir.

Of course.

No. Let us take a specific example. Say, for instance. I ran a sweepstake similar to the Irish sweepstake. Now, what is the Irish sweepstake? It is a scheme in terms of which one could buy a ticket and certain tickets were drawn against horses that would be running in the race. The whole thing was dependent upon which horse won the race. It was in connection with a horse race. And that, Mr. Speaker, is exactly what the Jackpot is. It is a competition based on the results of horse racing and is run by the Province of Natal. Each sporting club in Natal runs the races, but the public totalisators, the accumulations, the pay-outs, etc., are run by an entirely different body.

The principle that is involved here is the principle of certainty. The Minister is a lawyer and he knows that the essence of a good law is that it must be certain. The public are entitled to know where they stand—they are entitled to know what the law is. But in the light of this Bill the hon. Minister of Justice is failing South Africa very badly in this regard. Surely, Sir, it is not impossible to define what a lottery is. Since 1860 there has been more or less a definition of a lottery, but now in 1965 that definition is apparently not worth anything any more. Why does the Minister not define the law and then leave it to the courts to decide whether there has been a contravention or not?

Why was it not left for the courts to decide in the 1927 and 1939 legislation?

That legislation covered a game of chance—it has nothing to do with a lottery. Sir, the Minister now comes to this House, to this Parliament, in 1965 with a charter regarding lotteries, a charter to prohibit lotteries, to prohibit games of chance, to prohibit pin-tables, in fact to prohibit every kind of thing which might have anything to do with gambling. Why cannot the Minister in 1965 define what the law is going to be? Why are the people not entitled now to have from this Government a definition? The answer is very simple. The Government does not want a strict definition. Because it is not what it wants to-day, it is not what is acceptable to-day that the Government wants determined, but it wants to determine in the future things that might crop up—anything at all. That is why I say the Natal Jackpot is in danger in view of the provisions of this Bill, because the Government might decide a little later that in fact it does not like the people in Natal indulging in Jackpots with financial help.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories referred also to this question of the abrogation by disuse. Now, Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many prosecutions there have been in relation to lotteries, in relation to gambling, in relation to raffles. Because that is all a raffle is: It is a lottery. I hope the hon. the Minister, in reply to this debate, will give us some idea as to how many prosecutions there have been. In relation to the number of offences that are actually committed and the number of prosecutions, I should think that the greatest disproportion exists. I do not know of one fête in this country, not one fête held in aid of a political party’s funds, that I have been to which did not have a raffle. I have only been to one Nationalist Party fête and there was a raffle there. Very few church bazaars have no raffle. But a raffle is a lottery and as such it is illegal. It is illegal in terms of existing law. The hon. the Minister knows about these lotteries. His police know of it— indeed, everyone knows of it. But the police do not bother to prosecute because it does not really matter. It does not matter at all, because it does not hurt anyone. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories has said quite rightly that in respect of these matters these laws have been abrogated by disuse.

Adultery was a crime in our law. But it was decided by our courts that it had become abrogated by disuse, and as far as this matter under discussion is concerned, it follows exactly the same pattern. For years and years there were no prosecutions for adultery.

The Minister has come here with a new charter and a new attitude. He has come here with an attitude of mind to get rid of all the pin-tables. Is he now going to apply this Bill strictly when it becomes law? I submit he is not. I do not believe for one moment that the Minister will instruct his police to enforce the law at every church bazaar, at every fête and at every function where there is a raffle, even at every football club function, because everyone who wants to raise funds for some purpose or other does so by this means. Will the hon. the Minister indicate to us whether he is really serious about the application of this Bill if it becomes law? Is he, in fact, going to insist that every fête, for instance, is now going to be checked up and that every raffle is going to be dealt with? Because, if he is not going to do that, then the hon. the Minister is not being frank with this House, and that we object to because the Government is then not saying that it dislikes this and that and, consequently, prohibits it, but adopts the attitude of wanting to decide what people should do while the law is no longer a guide. As a matter of fact, we have so far not yet heard anything from anyone why, in these circumstances, this Bill should not be referred to a Select Committee for evidence on this subject to be heard, so that a new Bill might be brought up in which all the various offences will be defined.

I do not think anything will move the Minister in his attitude to this Bill. I think he is determined to put us all into moral strait-jackets. Now, gambling has, as the Minister has said, been subject to laws for many years. But whereas in certain countries the tendency is towards moving away from imposing restrictions on the personal rights of people, particularly in America, we in this country are doing just the reverse and are placing an embargo upon the liberties of people in regard to certain matters which are to-day regarded as innocent gambling.

Can you give me any instance of a new principle contained in this Bill?

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Minister is missing the point which some of us are trying to make. The point is that even if there is no new principle in this Bill, assuming that I accept that, we are after all amending the law and we are now, as the Minister has said, discussing a Bill which is a consolidating measure. Are we therefore not entitled to say to the Minister that even with the law as it stands to-day, having regard to usage and custom and behaviour of people, he should draw up and insert in this Bill, notwithstanding all the provisions which have existed for 100 years. … After all, we have advanced over the past 100 years. Politically we may not have advanced, but in other respects we have. In the United States of America there are certain states which will not permit gambling. But in the State of Nevada one of the most beautiful cities stands right in the heart of the desert. I am referring to the city of Las Vegas. This city arose as a result of gambling, as a result of the one-armed bandit. Everywhere in that city there are one-armed bandits. You can even spend your spare time in the toilet operating one of these machines.

Do you want the same thing in this country?

No, I do not. I am merely trying to indicate that conflicting views on gambling exist in America. One finds that one state will not want to have anything to do with gambling whilst an adjoining state will permit it. I am not asking that such a situation should be allowed to exist in South Africa. All I am asking the hon. the Minister to consider is the every-day behaviour of people. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) referred to fêtes. Well, the Community Chest Carnival is taking place today and to-morrow, and I have no doubt that certain devices of a gambling nature are being used there. What I want to know from the Minister—because I think the public will want to know from the Minister—is whether all those things will be declared illegal. I have known Christians of all denominations to play a certain game commonly known as housey-housey. One pays 10c for a card, numbers are taken out of a bottle, and if one holds the correct numbers one wins a prize. This game is an accepted form of raising money for charity. The game is called Bingo.

I played it on a ship.

I am sure the Minister enjoyed playing it.

I never won a sixpence, and that is why I grouse!

Well, I think a pool should have been rigged for the Minister! It was bad management! In any event there are certain forms of gambling which are being indulged in. In saying this I intend no reflection on the police, because they cannot possibly keep their eyes on everything, especially now that they will be employed under the Group Areas Act! Will the Minister give some indication as to whether a raffle can be used, as the hon. member for Durban (North) said, for raising funds for any charitable organization?

The Coloured people at every fête—and I have attended dozens and dozens of their fêtes—come along with a list and ask you to put your name down and guess the weight of the cake. The Minister must not get the name of being “Kill-joy Vorster”. Let the little kids at school functions have their raffles, let them carry on.

It could have happened under the old law, and everything that happened under the old law can happen under the new law.

But the hon. the Minister obviously wants to get a little tough under this Bill.

Everything that possibly could happen under the old law can still happen under the new law.

Well, then, what are we arguing about? We have been friends all the time, and we did not even know it! The Minister has now done everybody a good turn.

I should now like to deal in all seriousness with the Jackpot. I do not intend opposing the Minister any longer, although I feel that this Bill is very much more stringent than existing legislation.

In what respect? Will you give me one instance?

In respect of the pin-table question. I was present in this House when the Minister of Justice at the time said the following—

And that is why there are pin-tables to-day. That happened in 1961. There is one difference already. If the Minister wants to look after the youth, and he wants to say, “You are wasting your time by gambling, by playing these machines”, he might be taking a chance with these young people and may, by his action, be pushing them into other places where they might be exposed to much worse harm. I have drawn the Minister’s attention to a difference between this Bill and the law as it is to-day.

I also want to refer to the Varsity Rag. Everybody knows that the Varsity Rag people, as part of their fund-raising efforts, sell tickets in a competition where one has to estimate certain things with sometimes a motor-car as a prize.

A fellow in Pretoria is being prosecuted at present for doing just that.

Well, I have always thought that there are a few things in Pretoria which are not right! If it happens once a year, are those people to be affected by the Bill? Or will they have to obtain a licence, a permit, for it? The Minister knows that there have been hundreds and hundreds of this sort of cases in the past to which the police have evidently turned a blind eye. But this Bill will make the police more conscious of this type of thing, and will make them follow up the innocent participation in all these little games which we have always been playing.

There are certain types of gambling which all of us should like to see prohibited. But I submit that there is only on way in which we can find out to what extent we are ad idem in this regard and that is by referring the Bill to a Select Committee. This should be regarded as a non-political measure—as the hon. member for Transkeian Territories also said. On that we can all agree and, consequently, come forth from a Select Committee with an agreed measure. I do not think the hon. the Minister will in any way lose face by agreeing to that, nor will he lose any of his powers. We might even have been able to insert what is to-day common practice for the benefit of the Coloured people. The Coloured people will fear any contravention of the law, even though they know they may not be prosecuted. It will be a brake on their innocent activities at their bazaars, and so on, and I ask the Minister please to refer this to a Select Committee so that we can come forward with an agreed Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have had two debates this afternoon.

The Stock Exchange is not gambling.

I am very glad to hear that. The two subjects we have been discussing are liquor and gambling, and it has become a tradition in this House that when those subjects are discussed members have a free vote and can express their views as they wish. We know that on the subject of liquor, which is very similar to gambling, we have all agreed that people will use and abuse liquor and the only answer therefore is to have a system of legal control. We have had a debate on the production of liquor this afternoon, but there are people in the world whose principles are so strict that they will say it is wicked to produce liquor, to convert the grape into wine. There are people who believe that conscientiously, for religious reasons. There are people who say that to drink any kind of alcoholic liquor is wicked. Not only groups of people, but a whole nation once said so. The U.S.A. introduced total prohibition at one time. That means that no one in the country was allowed to produce or sell or drink liquor. People will go as far as that in dealing with liquor, and in dealing with gambling we are facing a similar situation. I introduced a motion in this House quite recently to introduce a form of investment, a thrift movement in South Africa. Hon. members, including these hon. members here, held up their hands in horror and said it was gambling. By a strange coincidence in this country at that time, was the Chairman of the British Thrift Committee, Viscount Mackintosh, who said that they had various forms of thrift in Britain; they have the national savings certificates and the Post Office savings bank and premium bonds, and their best thrift investment for the people was the premium bonds. But hon. members said it was gambling. When people buy premium bonds they receive their capital back, but not the interest; the interest is drawn for. I would like to know whether the Minister, with the powers he assumes in this Bill, will declare premium bonds illegal if a private undertaking were to start a savings movement run with premium bonds. I should like to know because you, Sir, are quite aware that that practice is at present being carried out in South Africa in the redemption of debentures. If a company says that it is floating debentures to the value of R 1,000,000 in the form of R100 debentures, then they are not always paid out at once. In some cases they pay out a certain number per annum, and they are drawn for. That is the practice in South Africa to-day. and under the Minister’s powers he can prohibit that. He can also prohibit the Minister of Defence drawing for men to go on service. It is a ballot, a lottery, and not only that, but there is a very great prize. The prize is given to the man who is not drawn. He saves twelve months of his life for employment. The boy who is drawn has to serve for twelve months, while the boy who is not drawn can go to the University or be apprenticed, or he can leave the country. That is the position in South Africa. We have accented this principle of drawing, or gambling, as they did in Biblical days. In the Biblical days they did it as well. Hon. members here said so. But what surprises me is that when we discussed premium bonds, hon. members opposite spoke about the evils of premium bonds, but to-day they do not speak about the evils of lotteries. Clause 10 deals with horseracing and the totalizator. Hon. members have not said a word about that. They do not object to that.

Yes.

Do you object to that?

Yes.

Then get up and say so.

In the Transvaal where all the members of the Executive Committee are Nationalists, with the exception of one, they are going to extend the use of the totalizator. That is how far we have gone in South Africa. When we look at Clause 10 (b), it says that nothing in the Act will apply in relation to any lottery or sports pool in respect of which no subscription is to be made. That is for the S.A.B.C. The S.A.B.C. announces a lottery practically every day. They say if you listen in. whoever gets the right name of a tune will receive R5. Of course about 600 people get the right name of the tune, but who gets the prize? The first one out of the hat. The people are told to wait while they are going to draw, and then Mrs. Jones living at Vuurfontein gets the prize. That is a lottery, but it is the practice to-day. I should like to help the hon. the Minister. He has been quite frank with us. I want to pay him that tribute. He said right away that the important clause in the Bill was Clause 1 (1) (a), which gives him these powers. That power depends on the Minister himself.

It is customary in this House to say that of course we have complete confidence in the Minister of the day, but we do not know who will be the Minister in the future. Well, we do not say that. We say what the hon. member for Durban (North) has said.

You will never get there.

I wish the hon. member would keep awake instead of waking up and going to sleep intermittently. (Laughter.) My hon. friend here says he would serve the House much better if he remained asleep. We have come to this position to-day that the Minister is granted these vast powers and we think the powers can be laid down in the law. Therefore the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) has asked that the Bill should go to a Select Committee. We have brilliant lawyers in the House.

That is the principle involved in all laws where the Minister is given powers.

I say the matter should be debated in the Select Committee and have these powers laid down in the law, but not the powers we have here. I think there are certain powers the Minister should have which he has not got.

But I want to come to one or two things in common life in South Africa and I want the Minister to give his reaction. What will be his reaction to premium bonds? Would he declare premium bonds illegal? The game of “house” has been mentioned. It has been called bingo. That is the only gambling game allowed in the British Army. Crown and anchor is not allowed.

The court in Port Elizabeth decided that it was illegal.

Then why do not the police exercise their powers? People are playing bingo all over the country. Surely they will not stop people playing bingo?

It is not played in public anywhere in the Republic.

But bingo is played in public in South Africa [Interjections.] Of course in our army you could play anything, even crown and anchor. We were not as strict about it as the British Army. There is a common example, and I should like the Minister to give us an indication as to whether he will take steps if “house” is played. The courts have decided, according to the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) that bingo is illegal. That is what we have been arguing here, namely, that the courts should decide these things and not the Minister. What does the Minister say? Will he declare it illegal if he has these powers?

Finally. I want to ask the Minister whether there is anything he can lose by referring this Bill to a Select Committee. Surely he has everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing that. His own men can advise him on the Select Committee. I think we can come to a solution, but in gambling there is only one answer: that is control, and not prohibition. You cannot stop people gambling. They will gamble as they have gambled from the beginning of time, and they will continue to gamble.

I want to add my voice to those that have already been raised and to ask the Minister whether he will net give second thoughts to this measure and refer it to a Select Committee.

I am sorry, but I cannot do that.

I am sorry the Minister has decided that way, because this is a matter which, rightly or wrongly, exercises the minds of the greatest section of the community one way or the other, either for or against. I am not speaking from the legal point of view.

I'm talking from the angle of the ordinary man in the street. The general attitude I find in regard to lotteries is the same as in regard to so many other things. Whilst you find a number of people—in this case I think a smaller number—who are very much opposed to any form of gambling or lotteries, you have a very large percentage of people who, provided there is control so that it cannot get out of hand, and provided also that it is in the cause of some well defined charity, are in favour of that type of sport. The Minister has omitted from this Bill the question of control over gambling on horse-racing on or off the course. Sir, let us face the hard facts: There are as many people in this country who are just as bitterly opposed to gambling on horse-racing as there are other people opposed to the buying of lottery tickets. In fact, there is a wide feeling in this country that much more damage is done to the pocket of the individual by gambling on horse-racing where the amount of the bet is completely unlimited, than by buying lottery tickets. Just think of the money which is spent on the so-called Jackpots, Quinellas. and other things for which fancy names have been coined in connection with horse-racing. Betting on horse-racing bears no relation to skill, except perhaps in the case of those few people who follow horse-racing very closely. The vast masses of race-goers, however, do not employ skill in selecting their horses. We know that large amounts of money are staked on these jackpots by individuals and syndicates, particularly when the jackpot has not been won for two or three weeks. One only has to go down to the race-course to see what vast amounts are staked on jackpots. You see people walking up to the ticket office with a handbag full of notes, to lay bets for a syndicate of people who are probably staking half their weekly wages. The betting is so heavy that extra ticket offices have to be brought in to cope with the betting. Vide Press reports it sometimes takes the ticket seller 20 minutes to issue tickets to one man who comes there with a handful of fivers. There is no control over that. A man may lose the whole of his month’s wages; his family and children may starve for the rest of the month unless he is one of the very few lucky ones. This Bill provides for the control of gambling by degree, the degree to which the Minister of Justice for the time being thinks it is necessary to control it. Sir, I am not advocating interference with gambling on the race-course. I do not indulge in betting myself, but if other people want to do it is a matter for their own conscience, their own taste, but if we have to apply control to one form of gambling, then I say that if the Government is completely honest and completely satisfied as to its own intentions in regard to gambling, the thing to do would be to refer this Bill to a Select Committee to consider gambling as a whole, not a particular portion of it which is now being placed under control as a result of pressure from certain institutions and certain organizations. So much pressure has been exerted upon the Government in this regard that it felt that it had to take some action; that is what it boils down to. Sir, lotteries are used, not in our own country but all over the world, in order to raise funds for needy charities, funds which we in this country raise by means of street collections but in other countries they are raised by means of premium bonds and state-controlled lotteries. These are all different forms of gambling. but the money is raised in that way because the public prefer it that way and they are quite prepared to pay their ten shillings for a ticket in the knowledge that some portion of it at least will ultimately find its way to some deserving charity. Well, if that is the desire of the masses of the public—and I believe it is—then why should we as a Parliament set out to thwart that desire of the public, or at any rate the desire and the wish of a very large percentage of the public to take their chance with a bet …

I have told you that I am just re-stating the law as it is at the moment.

The Minister has made the point several times that he is simply re-stating the law as it is at present. Well, if it is necessary to restate the law as it is at present, or rather if it is necessary to re-state a portion of the law as it is at present, because there are some reasons for bringing it up to date so that it can be applied more effectively, then surely the thing to do is to examine the whole of the law applying to gambling and betting and to re-state it in the form of a new and up-to-date piece of legislation which covers the whole field, after the matter has been properly investigated. What we have before us, however, is piecemeal legislation. We are being presented here with piecemeal legislation because there has been an outcry in certain quarters against lotteries. Sir, this is not the way to pass legislation.

I want to come back to the various forms of lottery which the hon. the Minister, or whoever the Minister may be for the time being, will have to consider with a view to deciding whether they constitute gambling or not. Reference has been made here to tombola, as it is properly called, or housey-housey as it is known in the army. Tombola is played extensively right throughout the country to-day and that fact is well known to the police. It is played extensively purely for the purpose or raising funds at house parties and in halls where so-called clubs meet to have an evening’s sport and entertainment, and a very large proportion of the takings is devoted so some form of charity or other. This game has won approval by popular adoption right throughout the country. This is one of the easiest forms of gambling although to me it is one of its most boring forms. Sir, who are we to ban it if the public want it? But the hon. the Minister. or whoever takes his place, will have to decide whether or not this game should be allowed. If an attempt is made to control every form of gambling, I can assure the Minister that with the various forms in which this type of sport—if you can call it sport—is carried on to-day, it is going to mean quite a lot of additional work for whoever has to decide what is, and what is not gambling. Take 90 per cent of the radio competitions that we have now-a-days. Are they anything other than gambling? The qualifying questions which participants are asked are so fantastically easy, and they are prompted so well as to what the answers are, that most of these competitions are camouflaged forms of gambling in order to bring them within the scope of the law. Take Pic-a-Box, for example, and all the other similar competitions on Springbok Radio which have swept throughout the country and which are accepted by 90 per cent of the people as part of their day to day entertainment. Are they going to be condemned as lotteries? Because they may all fall within the ambit of this law. I do not believe that they should fall within its ambit. Sir. there is a vast difference between out-and-out gambling where a man ruins his home, his home life and his family, and the buying of one or two lottery tickets. One may find syndicates buying quite a lot of tickets, but the individual, generally speaking, limits his purchase to one or two tickets. I as an individual have an open mind in this matter. To me personally it does not matter whether lotteries are banned or whether they are allowed to carry on. The buying of lottery tickets, however, has come to be accepted as part of the life of the people of this country. Sir, the Minister says that he is merely bringing the law up-to-date, that he is consolidating the existing laws. But when we consolidate laws, some of which go back as far as 1860, surely it is time also to examine the whole law and to see whether some changes are not warranted in view of the fact that times have changed and that the outlook of people has changed over these years. In this Bill what was good enough in 1860, when the first Act was passed in the Cape to deal with this matter, and what was good enough subsequently when the other laws which we are about to repeal were passed, is good enough for to-day. But the whole pattern of life has changed. There are some of us who may believe that that change has not been for the better, but the fact remains that the pattern has changed. Surely if we are going to legislate to bring all these gambling laws up to date, it is also imperative that we should try to bring them into line with present-day thinking in this country. The hon. the Minister has pointed out that the passing of this measure will not affect bridge games played by old gentlemen for low stakes or rummy games played by old ladies, but here again it is going to be difficult to draw a distinction between what is gambling, or a game played for entertainment at a house party, and an organized game to raise funds, where a club invites its 50 or 60 members to pay half-a-crown and to come along to a particular drive to raise funds for the club or for this, that or the other party. For that reason, too, I believe that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Although the hon. the Minister has said that he is not prepared to do so, I would ask him to think it over again and to consider whether, if he refers the Bill to a Select Committee, we are not more likely in the long run to devise a better piece of legislation, something more workable, something that the country will accept more gracefully than this measure, because the general feeling undoubtedly is that we are legislating here against certain forms of gambling in this country and excluding others. That we have not got the courage of our convictions to legislate against something which is bringing a lot of revenue to the State, directly or indirectly. Sir, horse-racing was originally promoted with a view to improving the breed of horses. Well, that is one of the finest objects that I can think of, and magnificent work has been done in this respect. We might say that motor-car racing is in the same category; that motor-car racing was first introduced to improve the build and the design of motor-cars and to increase their power.

The horse is moving out of the picture and its place is being taken by the motor-car. There has been a change in the whole outlook of the world as a result of scientific and other advances, and people want some outlet or other for their gambling instincts. Sir, I would comment to the Minister that he gives this matter very serious thought—second or third thought if necessary. There is no disgrace in anybody having second thoughts on a matter of this kind. I would therefore ask the Minister to re-consider whether he is not prepared to accept the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) to refer this Bill to a Select Committee so that he can come forward at a later stage with a piece of considered legislation which we can perhaps all support.

One can appreciate the Opposition’s difficulty as far as this legislation is concerned, but it is not merely a question of whether the legislation should remain as it was in the past. There is a fundamental difference of opinion on the question as to whether or not lotteries should be allowed. This fundamental difference was clearly noticeable on the various occasions on which motions were introduced in this regard. We already have legislation in this country which makes the necessary provision in regard to lotteries, legislation which, for all practical purposes, is embodied in this proposed legislation. Hon. members on that side want to make use of this opportunity to change the existing legislation as it suits them. If there are lotteries in a country it not only affects the individuals in that country; it affects the character of the entire nation. That is why this is a very important matter. The hon. member for Simonstown made the allegation here that we are putting legislation through this House piecemeal, but if the hon. member looks at pages 10 and 11, he will see that what is contemplated here is the very opposite. The fact of the matter is that, far from introducing legislation piecemeal, we are consolidating the existing legislation so that we shall have one Act dealing with lotteries and games of chance.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) said that their main objection was to the definition of “game of chance”, and on that ground they asked that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. He also objected to the definition of “lottery”, but if I understood him correctly, his main objection was to the definition of “game of chance”. This subject is one that requires detailed discussion, and in view of the time I move—

Agreed to.