I wish to move the following amendment—

Here a margin of six months is allowed to a person who has been on military service, to state whether he wishes to return to the Civil Service. I think that is not altogther in the interests of the Civil Service. I consider that three months should be long enough for such a person to decide whether he wishes to return to the Civil Service. That applies to people who have left the service as a result of resignation or of desertion, in order to go and fight. They went without taking into consideration the detrimental effect it had on the service. It is now the Government’s policy to take those people back in the service. Good and well. We assume that the Government will continue its policy. Then we contend that such a person who has been in the service for all these years, should at least within three months be able to decide whether or not he wishes to return to the service. If he left the service in that manner, by simply walking out, it should be easy for him to decide within three months, and it is not in the interests of the Civil Service to allow him a margin of six months. The result will be that he will first try something else, and if it is not pleasant enough, he may possibly, after five months and some days, decide to return to the service. That is the reason we say that we must give him three months’ time, and that that should be sufficient. The further amendment makes provision for people who are discharged outside the boundaries of the Union. It might take time before they can return to the Union, and that is why we must allow them a reasonable period. We give the Public Service Commission the power to say that these people could not apply sooner, and that an extension must be given to them. That does not penalise those persons who, through circumstances over which they have no control, could not make application sooner here. But as far as the other people are concerned, we consider that they could decide within three months, and we feel that six months in such cases is too long a period.

I trust that my hon. friend will not insist on his amendments. We agree as far as the principle of the clause is concerned, viz., to give consideration to those people. The question is only that of the period. We must take the fact into consideration that many of these are not in a normal state of mind after their experiences. They are not quite sure of themselves when they return. Before they can return to their normal way of living, a period of time may elapse, and we must, therefore, give them a reasonable chance to find their feet and to be able to decide. I may say that a fair amount of pressure is being brought to bear on me by one of the staff societies of the Railways to make this period twelve months. They go as far as that. I am not prepared to go so far, and I do not think six months is an unreasonable period. I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend will not insist on his amendments.

The position is that we do not want these people first to try and see if someone cannot give them something better. We must remember that they left the service unlawfully, and when they are given the opportunity to return, they first wait for six months to see if something better does not offer. That is not the correct spirit. A person who has previously been in the Civil Service, should easily be able to decide within three months whether he wishes to return. I feel that a period of six months is prolonging the period too much.

I wish to support the amendment in this spirit. We have heard what the Minister of Finance has said. But I consider that this amendment will help precisely those people to return to a normal condition. The sooner they can begin with their work, the sooner they will return to normal. The Minister must remember that the Railway Administration and the Civil Service are both desirous of returning to normal conditions as soon as possible, and the sooner these officials who are out of the service are again linked up, the better it will be for both the Civil Service and the officials. We do not want to prejudice anyone through this, but we wish to help check this spirit of dissolution and irresponsibility. A further point is this: the sooner a man returns, and the sooner he takes his right place in the Civil Service, the better it will be for him and for the service. I mean it in that sense. If those persons remain out of the service longer, then other people enter the service before them and take their places in the Civil Service, with the result that it becomes a grievance with them afterwards, and then it will be due to his own action because he did not enter the service timeously. If there are cases such as those mentioned by the Minister, those cases can always be dealt with by not demobilising them so prematurely. They are in any case transferred to a new unit from where they are demobilised, and we can simply keep them in military service until they are sufficiently normal to be able to make a decision. If it is thought that such people are not mornal, they can be retained in the service before they are demobilised until such time as it is considered that they are mentally and spiritually normal. It will be in the interests of the service, and also in the interests of those persons, not to stretch the period unnecessarily long. I support the amendment.

May I put to the Minister of Finance a question as to the case of a young man who had been appointed by letter to the Public Service, who never took up his appointment, who never resigned and who was never granted leave. His ambition is to be a member of the Public Service. He joined the 1st Royal Natal Carbineers, and proved himself one of the best of the Abyssinian contingent of the Union Army. When he came back on leave from the North he came to see me in this House and indicated his difficulties. He wanted to be quite sure that he was not going to fall between two stools in regard to his position in the service. I went to a good deal of trouble, I saw the Secretary of the Public Service Commission, and I understood cases of this sort would be completely covered. The chapters which follow do not deal with such cases. He had been appointed, and although he never took up his office it might be argued that his appointment was not completely consummated. I do not want any technicality of this sort to let him down.

Without a little more knowledge of the details I cannot say whether the case would fall under Section 2. I think it would, but if it does not it would fall under Section 4; so I do not think my hon. friend need have any fears with regard to that particular case.

†*Then I wish to point out in a case where such a person first accepted other work, he will not be entitled to the advantages of this clause, unless the Civil Service Commission recommends his case as an exceptional case.

And if he loses his other work within six months?

Then he can only enjoy the privileges of this clause if the Civil Service Commission makes a special recommendation in his case.

We are not so sure about this long period. We do not know what is behind it and whether it is just to pacify people. We feel, therefore, that the Minister must accept this reasonable amendment. As soon as the official returns, he can, under this legislation, be placed in the service within three months. The officials should, even in the field, get to know that this is a requirement. As soon as they get home, they will know immediately to take steps to be absorbed again in the service within three months. If there are some of these soldiers who need a rest, what is to prevent the Minister to grant them the necessary leave at a portion of their salary or at the full salary? Why cannot such leave be granted to those men who really are still in need of three months or six months’ recuperation? The officials then will have such leave, but they would know that they are reinstated in their positions. They can take their leave for two or three months with the assurance that they are reinstated, and in case a soldier loses his health, why should he not recuperate in his work and receive six months’ or a year’s sick leave? I am not quite satisfied in connection with this proposal. I know that the Minister is not influenced by ulterior motives, but why should these people be left for such a long time on a loose footing. The men come back, they have no money, how can he loaf around for six months? And if he has put aside a little bit of money, he has to spend every penny of it. It seems to me an impracticable proposition that he returns to duty after six months. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to this matter. I want to repeat: What prevents him to reinstate these people in the service, and then to grant them leave, for a year if necessary.

I appreciate the Minister’s reply in regard to the case I mentioned. The only difficulty in regard to this case coming under Clause 4 is that he would be losing the value of the war service he is rendering to-day. We understood from the Secretary of the Public Service Commission that a lad while on military service would be reckoned to be rendering public service.

I can assure the hon. member that it will count in his service.

This amendment has a good purpose. It does not contain anything political, and the attitude of the Minister is that he is not going to accept this amendment. The fact that the Minister did not reply to the suggestion I made, proves to us that the Minister is unsympathetic as far as this matter is concerned. Does the Minister really wish that those people who do not enter the service within the first three months because they lost their health, must first of all regain their health? The man does not feel capable of doing his work. He does not enter the service because he does not see his way clear to do it. I consider that he should be able to enter immediately and then obtain leave.

He can make application immediately.

And are you then prepared to grant him leave for three or six months?

He will then be able to enjoy his rights according to the Public Service Act.

First amendment proposed by Mr. Swart put and negatived.

As my first amendment has been rejected, it is needless to put the second and I would like to withdraw it.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Swart, withdrawn with leave of the Committee.

According to Sub-clause (2), it is left to the person to choose whether or not he will come under these pension rights. Is that so?

In this case the Civil Service Commission will lay down what the conditions will be with regard to the back calculation of service, especially in view of the person’s own contributions. The person will then know what the conditions are and he can decide.

In connection with (3) (b), we find with regard to the conditions for contributions to the pension fund, certain provisions, and it appears to me that these provisions can only apply to pre-Union officials. Are there other persons whose pension contributions are paid by the Government? I cannot think that there are pre-Union officials who joined the army.

The intention is to make this generally applicable. The Government can decide, in special cases, that the Government will be responsible for the contributions for the period of the individual’s military service.

That raises a new principle of which we were not aware. It amounts to this, that the Government undertakes to pay the pension contributions of those returned soldiers for the period which they were serving.

It makes it possible for the Government to do that.

It amounts to this that the Government will pay everything. I cannot imagine that the Government will pay in certain cases and not in others. It is a serious question of policy, with regard to which we would like to hear what the Government plans are. It simply means that the Government is taking the responsibility on himself to pay all the pension contributions for those officials for the period in which they were on military service.

It is put like that because in the ordinary case the Government will pay. But there may be circumstances which will result that in certain cases it will not be done.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 4,

I just want to explain in the first instance that it is not one intention to make this principle applicable to persons who are not Union Nationals, and to make that clear, it is not desirable to accept the amendment of which the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) gave notice, because that amendment will not cover the position. To make that amendment more generally applicable, I wish to put it in the following manner—

1. (9) No person who is not a Union National at the date upon which his application for appointment or employment is lodged in terms of Sub-Section (1) shall be appointed or employed in terms of Sub-section (2) or (3).

I will again propose the same amendment later on in Clause 8.

I am very glad that the Minister has proposed this amendment, because it was my intention to propose something similar. The Minister’s amendment is more general and better. I am glad that he did it, because it would not be fair to grant these privileges to people who are not Union Nationals. It would be unfair towards sons of our own country. Then I wish to propose the amendment of which I gave notice and which reads as follows—

The position amounts to this, that the Government wants to compensate a person for what he lost because he went on active service. Now we say good. But in the Act of 1919 we also had to deal with similar cases, and on the basis of that Act, we now propose this amendment. We wish to make this section applicable to persons who, when they went on active service, were entitled to enter the Civil Service; in other words, people under the age of 25 years. As the clause now reads, it appears as if any person, even if he is thirty years old or more, can apply. The Act of 1919 laid down that the person, at the time when he enlisted for military service, would have been eligible for appointment in the Civil Service, in other words, he should have been under 25 years. We must not give to these people more than they are entitled to. The argument is that the person enlisted and thereby forfeited his chance to enter the Civil Service. Give him that chance now once more, but do not at the same time give the persons who were at that time already over 25 years, the opportunity to enter. Then we also come to the educational qualifications. It is in the interests of the Civil Service only to appoint persons who are properly qualified. The Minister’s argument is that perhaps, by enlisting, a person was prevented to obtain the educational qualifications. Then put it to such a person that within two years he must acquire the necessary qualifications required under the Act. I consider my amendment reasonable, because it does not deprive these people of any rights which they would have had.

I think that the first line of the amendment goes further than my hon. friend wants to go. The age of 25 is only applicable to the clerical division of the civil service and nothing is contained in the Public Service Act which makes it impossible for persons over 25 to be appointed in other divisions. Perhaps he can change his amendment to limit it to the clerical division. I regret that even that I cannot accept. I do not consider that it is just a question of reinstating the people in the positions in which they would otherwise have been. The Government waits to encourage employers generally to take more soldiers in their employ. Where that is the case, we must also be prepared to be more lenient as far as age is concerned, and therefore this limitation should not be imposed even in respect of the clerical section. We must have confidence in the Public Service Commission to see to it that unsuitable persons are not appointed. In regard to the second half, it is clear to me, as I intimated at the second reading, that in the case of these persons, we have to be prepared to be lenient in regard to the age qualification and also in respect of other qualifications. These men have been educated in a different kind of school, the school of life, and where the Public Service Commission is of opinion that they are sufficiently qualified to do the work, we should not demand of them to pass examinations afterwards. For those reasons I hope my hon. friend will not insist on his amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Swart put and negatived; amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I want to move to negative the clause so as to put it into the third part of the Bill in order to make it of general application.

Clause put and negatived.

On Clause 7,

I move the following amendment—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

I move—

That serves the same purpose.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On New Clause to follow Clause 11,

I move—

1. 12.
   1. (1) Noth withstanding anything to the contrary in any other law, if any person in the employ of the Government was or is granted leave of absence without civil pay by the head of his department or by or under the authority of the General Manager, as the case may be, in respect of any period of his absence on military service, such leave of absence together with not more than thirty days prior to his enlistment for and thirty days subsequent to his discharge from, such service, shall count as service for the purpose of increments in his civil salary or wages, and the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as from the date upon which such person became or becomes eligible for the payment of such salary or wages.
   2. (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1) a person who has rendered military service and who is readmitted to the service of the Government in terms of sub-section (1) of section two or sub-section (1) of section six, shall be deemed to have been on authorized leave of absence without pay for the period or periods of his military service together with not more than thirty days prior to his first enlistment for, and thirty days subsequent to his final discharge from, such service.

Agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move— In line 53, to omit “or (3)”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 1st May.

I have certain amendments printed on the Order Paper. In the first place I move—

so as to make it clear that stevedores and others who are not members of the crew are not included. Then I move—

so as to remove the liability from clearing agents acting on behalf of importers. Then I move—

That is an amendment suggested by the law advisers, as otherwise a King’s warehouse might have to be appointed by notice in the gazette, which is unnecessary. Then I move—

I further move—

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause as, amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I move—

Under Sub-section (3) the Minister may suspend the operation of any of these provisions and I want to make it clear that these suspensions will not come into operation without due notice, †*The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has given notice of an amendment, in consequence of which I have gone into the matter a little further more in particular in regard to the provisions contained in Clause 21 (1) (e). It is clear that we have to extend the protection here somewhat. I believe the principle has already been recognised in the Merchandise Marks Act of 1941, and I think that we can achieve our purpose by inserting the following amendment—

1. (e) Goods which bear a “false description” as defined in the Merchandise Marks Act No. 7 of 1941; and

That makes it general, and I want to move that. Whilst I am on my feet, may I refer to a further amendment of which the hon. member has given notice in regard to (g), dealing with copyright. There the position is somewhat complicated, because the British Copyright Act is still applicable in South Africa. It is one of the old Acts which is still applicable. After consulting the legal advisers, I got into touch with the Registrar of Patents and Copyrights in Pretoria. I sympathise with the purport of the amendment, but the question is how it could be brought about. The matter is somewhat complicated and to my mind it would be wrong to amend this provision at this stage. I intend, however, to go into the matter and if the occasion offers, to deal with the matter, if necessary.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 20,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 29,

I move—

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 32, On the motion of the Minister of Finance, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 34,

I move–

In line 71, to omit “freight and charges (including landing and wharfage charges)” and to substitute “expenses, freight and charges, including charges due to the Railways and Harbours Administration”.

The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that all charges payable to the Railways and Harbours Administration and not merely the wharfage dues will be debit against the proceeds of the sale of uncleared goods.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 39,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 71,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 64,

Here we touch on the tariff policy of the Government. It seems to me that we are here dealing with a difference on principle between this side and the other side. It is the Government’s policy only to grant minimum duties under the Ottawa Agreement, that is to say to parts of the British Empire. That is what it amounts to. In view of the fact that the Ottawa Agreement Act is still in existence, we realise that we cannot propose a changé here. But I only want to say that it is our intention to give expression to our policy by moving an amendment to Clause 69. We cannot as long as the Ottawa Agreement is in existence, alter the law, but under Clause 69 we want to authorise the Minister to grant the minimum tariff to countries outside the British Empire, as soon as the Ottawa Agreement is terminated.

I understand the attitude of the hon. member, but he will also realise that we are now consolidating the existing Act, and therefore we have again to incorporate the provisions of the Act in relation to the Ottawa Agreements. The revision of the Ottawa Agreements is being negotiated at present and one may expect that alterations will be brought about. But in the meantime I am hot prepared to effect any alteration in this Bill which may prejudice the position. I therefore hope that the House will be prepared to leave the position as it is.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 65,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 66,

There is an amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Ceres, and at his request I want to move that amendment. I think it is generally understood that labour conditions include a satisfactory relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans in factories. I think it was generally taken for granted that that was included in the words “labour conditions,” and every owner of a factory had to see to it that the correct relationship was maintained between Europeans and non-Europeans in his factory. But to put that beyond doubt, we want to ask the Minister to accept the amendment, which I now move—

The Clause will then read—

1. (c) is maintaining unsatisfactory labour conditions, including unsatisfactory contact between European and non-European employees.

We feel that we should make it possible. It was the practice so far.

I think the hon. member now wants to drag me within the jurisdiction of another department. I do not think it will be desirable to mention one particular class of unsatisfactory labour conditions here. Why should we not mention others as well? He says that the administration was satisfactory in the past. Why then mention a specific type of unsatisfactory labour condition? I do not think it is desirable to accept this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 69,

I now move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals)—

I would like to know what objection the Minister can raise against being granted the right to grant the minimum tariff also to other countries, bar those within the British Empire, if we can conclude advantageous trade treaties with such countries? We do not say that that should be compulsory, but we want to enable the Minister to do that once the Ottawa Agreement is repealed. There are negotiations pending. What objection can the Minister have?

The hon. member is quite right when he says that the amendment does not place any compulsion on the Government. He now wants to propose something which can be made use of once the Ottawa Agreement is amended. I think it would be better to deal with the matter as a whole. When the Ottawa Agreement comes to be amended, it will probably be necessary to amend it in many respects by means of legislation, and then this matter can be dealt with.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 71,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 76, On the motion of the Minister of Finance an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 77,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 79, On the motion of the Minister of Finance an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 81,

I have an amendment on the agenda. Apparently the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) did not notice my amendment. In any case, his amendment goes further than mine and I am prepared to alter my amendment so that it will include the principal points he wants to have inserted. I therefore move my amendment as follows—

I think that covers the point.

It satisfies us.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 82,

There is an amendment which only refers to the Afrikaans text. It is only intended to improve the text. Then I also move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 84,

I have an amendment which is consequential to an amendment which I shall move in Clause 88. I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 87,

This is an important clause. It deals with the special duties based on c.i.f. prices and as drafted simply continues the position at present in force. Various questions have been raised with me as to the desirability of going further than we do today, and as a result it has been decided to appoint a special committee during the recess to investigate the adequacy or otherwise of the anti-dumping measures in this law from the point of view of the protection of our industries against uneconomic competition. Pending that investigation I think it would be desirable to leave the clause as it stands. I undertake that the investigation will take place, and I think we may in the meantime leave the clause as it stands.

May I suggest to the Minister the desirability of including in the terms of reference to the proposed committee on anti-dumping, a direction to report as to the extent to which the statutory protection has enabled existing young industries to get on to their feet in the Union. I think that while we were asked to impose certain protection it was always understood that when the industry got on to its feet it would be possible to reduce the protection on the articles manufactured by these industries, and to put the products of these industries on the market at prices which would give some relief to the consumers. Would the Minister just bear that in mind? I see a letter in the press by Mr. H. O’K. Webber, a well-known public man in Johannesburg, drawing attention to the failure of the Government to carry out its pledge to reduce the duty on shoes from 30 per cent. to 20 per cent. Now this enquiry which the Minister is to authorise is of considerable importance, and I hope these further matters will be borne in mind.

The point which the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has raised is of considerable importance, but it is rather different from the point with which we are dealing. But I want to assure the hon. member that the particular question to which he refers is at present engaging the attention of the Board of Trade.

I only want to say that after the assurance given to us by the Minister of Finance, viz., that during the recess a committee or commission will be appointed to go into this matter, we do not intend to raise any further difficulties in connection with the matter. But as you know, we are now dealing with the very essense of our policy of protection.

An important part of it.

I must say that my experience on the cost-plus commission has taught me to attach great value to the cost investigation which are going on all the time in relation to our industries and the way in which the efficiency of our industries is increased. It is for that reason that we intended to move an amendment this morning, viz., to grant this kind of protection to industries. We know that when there is dumping, we have to do with the average world price of an article. It is extremely difficult to ascertain that price. It is a complicated matter, and we would like to add that such can only be done after very thorough investigation into cost calculations of factories and after the Government has satisfied itself that the factories are efficiently and satisfactorily managed. But after the Minister’s statement, we are prepared to leave the matter there.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 88, The MINISTER OF FINANCE : I move—

1. (2) For the purpose of this section and of Sub-section (3) and (4) of Section Ninety-one, any abnormal costs additional to the export price incurred by the importer as the result of a state of war, strikes, lock-outs, riots or civil commotions shall not be regarded as forming part of the free-on-board cost of the goods to the importer.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 90,

I move—

Agreed to

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 91, On the motion of the Minister of Finance, certain amendments were made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 95, The MINISTER OF FINANCE : I move—

1. (i) factory which is situated in an area approved to the Minister and is registered under the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act No. 22 of 1941; or
2. (ii) mine or works as defined in Section Two of the Mines and Works Act No. 12 of 1911 and which is situated in an area approved by the Minister;

and in line 70, and on Page 52, line 1, respectively, after “factory” to insert “mine or works”.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 96, The MINISTER OF FINANCE : I move—

“subject”, in line 5, down to “Provided that”, in line 11, and to substitute “subject to such exceptions as may be specified in the notice, the duty shall be rebated on goods—

1. (i) which have been imported into the Union (upon payment of duty which has not been refunded), exported from the Union and thereafter returned to or brought back by the exporter in the Union without having been subjected to any process of manufacture or manipulation; and
2. (ii) which have been produced or manufactured in the Union, exported therefrom and thereafter returned to or brought back by the exporter in the Union without having been subjected to any process of manufacture or manipulation;

Provided that, in respect of goods produced or manufactured in the Union—”

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 101,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 106,

I move—

“fourteen” and to substitute “seventeen or a customs aerodrome appointed in terms of Section Fourteen”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 117, The MINISTER OF FINANCE : I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 120, On the motion of the Minister of Finance, certain amendments were made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 127,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 131,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 135,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 136,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 141,

I move—

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 142, The MINISTER OF FINANCE : I move–

In line 31, to omit “or forfeiture”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 146,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 148,

I move—

Provided further that no sum shall be awarded to any officer in terms of this section unless he has rendered conspicuous services in connection with the matter.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 151.

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 157,

I move—

1. (2) An agent appointed by an importer or exporter and any person who represents himself to any officer as the agent of any importer or exporter, and is accepted as such by that officer, shall be liable, in respect of the matter in question, to any penalties which may be incurred in respect of that matter.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 160, The MINISTER OF FINANCE : I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 162, The MINISTER OF FINANCE : I move— In line 64, after “(1)” to insert “as to”. Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the First Schedule,

May I move the amendments as printed. I undertook not to move an amendment in regard to tractors, and that therefore is not being moved. The position remain as at present. The same applies to Item 325. I move—

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Second Schedule, The MINISTER OF FINANCE : I move—

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

On the Third Schedule,

I move—

Agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Title having been agreed to, HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

If there is no objection, I want to move that the amendments be considered forthwith, in order to save printing costs. I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I find the Bill is divided into eleven chapters and three schedules. If the House wishes, I shall put the amendments chapter by chapter.

Is it the intention to put the amendments en masse?

If the House so desires, the amendments to the various clauses will be put. It was my intention to put the chapters in order to save time.

Personally I have no objections, but to my mind it would be a wrong procedure to follow.

If it is the hon. member’s wish, the amendments to the various clauses can be put, or otherwise I can put the chapters.

I think they should be put like that. I am afraid of creating a precedent.

I understand that that is the procedure followed in the British Parliament in order to save time. It will not mean the establishment of a precedent.

Can you tell us whether it has been done before in our Parliament?

No, it has not been done here up to now.

Then I think we should not change the procedure. Why should we introduce here the practise of the British Parliament?

Our rules provide that we can follow the procedure of the British Parliament here where our rules do not make provision, and in this case, it may be done, provided there is no objection raised by an hon. member. Does the hon. member desire the amendments to be put separately?

Yes.

Very well, it will be done.

Amendments considered.

Amendments in Clauses 1, 21, 28, 29, 32 (Afrikaans), 34, 39, 41, 65, 66, 69, 71, 76 (Afrikaans), 77, 79 (Afrikaans), 81, 82, 84, 88, 90, 91 (Afrikaans), 95, 96, 101, 106, 117, 120 (Afrikaans), 127, 131, 135, 136, 141, 142, 146, 148, 151, 157, 160, 162 and in the First, Second and Third Schedules, put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 3rd May.

I move—

The purpose of this Bill is mainly to give effect to certain proposals in regard to increased excise duties which have already been approved of by the House. At the same time the Bill contains certain proposed amendments in the Excise Act which are considered of minor importance. As far as increased taxation is concerned, questions of policy in relation thereto have been discussed fairly extensively, and it is therefore not my intention again to go into these matters. For the convenience of hon. members, I want to indicate how it is proposed to give effect to the resolutions of Committee of Ways and Means in this Bill. Hon. members may remember that there are proposed new excise duties in respect of matches, cigarettes, pipe tobacco and wine. The increased duty on matches is contained in items 5 and 6 of the first clause of the Bill, in regard to cigarettes in Clauses 16 and 17 of the Bill, as far as the increased duty on pipe tobacco is concerned, provision is made in item 20 of the first schedule, but then one has to read in conjunction therewith item 41 bis of the second schedule which provides for a rebate on the duty on tobacco. As hon. members know, it is proposed to increase the duty to 2s., but then a rebate of 1s. 4d. is granted on chipped blends of tobacco, and 1s. on medium quality tobacco. Therefore the position will remain the same as far as these two types are concerned and the increased duty will only be levied on the more expensive types of tobacco. Then we come to this proposal in regard to wine. There provision is made both for fortified wine and sparkling wine under item 22 of the first schedule, but in conjunction therewith one has to read Clauses 1, paragraphs (b); (c) and (d) giving the definition of fortified wine and sparkling wine.

Does it only apply to wine, fortified with brandy?

You will notice what the definition says—

Not spirits?

It says here “winebrandy or grape brandy”. Then in connection with this item 22 in the first schedule, one has to bear in mind items 47 to 55 of the second schedule on page 9 of the Bill. There provision is made for exemption of this tax in respect of certain types of fortified wine. I think it has been clearly set out there and I do not want to take up the time of the House by referring to the various items.

It contains a new principle. Part of the schedule is deleted and something else substituted.

I don’t think that is so. I now refer to items 47 to 55, where only new items are added to the second schedule and which deals with rebates and refunds. As I have said already, we propose certain further amendments to the existing Excise Act. In the first place we are dealing with certain defects of the Excise Act. I refer in that connection to the amended definition of “Agricultural distiller” in paragraph (a) of Clause 1. In the Excise Act of 1942 we neglected to provide for South West Africa, and that is added now. Then I also want to refer to Clause 3, where we propose to amend Section 68 of the existing act. Clause 68 of the existing Act provides that where mixing take place, the mixture will be subject to the excise duty applicable to the ingredient which is subject to the highest tax. It is only fair to make an exception in the case where an alcoholic extract is added merely for the purpose of sweetening or of flavouring. That it what we are after here. Then in Clause 2, we propose a small amendment in regard to the Excise Duty on reconditioned tyre covers, and in Clauses 4 and 5 amendments are proposed in respect of the Excise Duty on yeast, which are also of minor importance. Clause 4 gives certain powers to the Commissioner, in the first place to determine the maximum quantity of yeast a baker may obtain under the rebate of duty, and secondly to prevent anybody who uses yeast for the baking of bread or other foodstuffs for sale, of obtaining any yeast which was not obtained by him in terms of a permit issued under this Act, to obtain further quantities under rebate or refund. Thirdly the Commissioner is empowered to refuse refunds to anybody selling yeast to other businesses. Clause 5 makes it punishable for a baker to make illegal use of yeast obtained by him under rebate or refund. The purpose of these provisions is only to strengthen control in regard to the use of yeast granted under rebate, and to ensure that where people receive yeast under rebate for the purpose of baking bread and not for other purposes, no misuse can be made. I think I have indicated what the provisions of the Bill are, and I therefore move the second reading.

This Bill, as the Minister has told us, is necessary to legalise the increased duties. I have a number of objections to this Bill, which I can raise in the Committee stage. I only want the Minister to understand that he has not satisfied me by granting this concession to the bakers as far as their yeast is concerned. I think it is still wrong. I am glad, however, that he is now trying to protect himself so that the baker cannot take the yeast and sell same to people to make skokiaan. As a matter of fact, we were never able to understand why the bakers should enjoy this concession in regard to yeast, whilst the housewives had to pay the duty. Because the bakers’ bread is consumed by the rich people. The poor people bake their own bread. That is why we felt that it was not right to grant this concession to the bakers. I still think so, but I welcome the fact that the Minister goes further now and lays down that bakers who obtain a permit, shall only be allowed to use the yeast exempted from taxation for the baking of bread. I want to repeat briefly why in my opinion the position is not what it should be. The natives have discovered that if you mix sugar and yeast and add a small quantity of carbide, then you have skokiaan within a matter of our hours, specially if by adding a little spirits. Why not allow these people to drink good wine? The work of the police is not facilitated either, because within four hours after destroying a quantity of skokiaan, the natives are in possession of new supplies. I want to tell the Minister that I do not quite understand the definition of “fortified” wine. As I read the clause, it only includes wine which has been fortified by adding wine, brandy or grape brandy. I am prepared to leave it at that. Possibly I should not have mentioned it at all, but in any case, I think the Minister should go into the matter. Furthermore, I believe the Minister is making a mistake in respect of the provision that the wine farmer under the schedule gets exemption in respect of 15 gallons of which he does not pay any duty. The Minister there uses the term “calendar month” but if he reads the Act he will see the wine farmers’ year is from 1st February to 3rd January, and by this change, he may be doing an injustice to the wine farmer who, under the existing Act, may still obtain his 15 gallons in January. I think the Minister should bear in mind that the wine farmers’ year commenced on 1st February. Then I do not quite see eye to eye with the Minister when he says that his schedule is only altered in order to facilitate carrying out the taxation proposals. You will notice that it is proposed in the second schedule to delete item 16 altogether.

I did not refer to that when I made this remark. The hon. member is quite correct.

Item 16 deals with distilling spirits utilised for industrial purposes and which has been made undrinkable. Of course, these spirits consist mainly of methylated spirits and others, which are utilised for industrial purposes and the rebate is the whole of the duty. Now this item is deleted and in its place an item is inserted empowering the Minister to say what the rebate is going to be. It reads as follows—

Then the rebate will be as determined by the Minister by notice in the Gazette. That is an important alteration. The privilege in regard to the rebate which they enjoyed in the past is now placed in the hands of the Minister, who will determine the rebate to be granted. If you look up item 18 in the original Act of 1942, you will find—

Then the rebate is “the whole less 7s. 6d. per Imperial proof gallon.” That is now altered and discretion is left to the Minister. The Minister must realise that particularly in regard to medicines, a large quantity of patent medicines are used by poor people, and for the manufacture of patent medicines quite a quantity of spirits and brandy is used. Many of the poor people cannot always call in a doctor and they use patent medicines, some of them are very effective. In any case, that is all the poor people have. In the past 7s. 6d. per Imperial gallon was paid on that, and now it is left to the Minister and he can increase the duty and remove the rebate. I do not think we can leave that in the hands of the Minister, even though he has to consult the Board of Trade and Industries. It seems to me that the Government should not increase the price of medicines for poor people.

That is not our intention at all. I shall go into that.

Those are a few things which need looking into. As far as the definitions are concerned, it seemed as if the definition of “sparkling wine” is not fair either, because by the duty of 7s. 6d. per gallon on wine, the Minister is now going to punish factories who do not apply the natural process of fermentation, but who add something extraneous, and that is going to make it very expensive. The natural process is a difficult process and there is a lot of wastage, as bottles are inclined to blow up. Therefore the wine will become expensive. Now a man will buy ordinary light wine and add a bottle of soda water. Then he has the same thing. The Minister should bear in mind that every means will be employed to evade taxation and the honest man will suffer.

I only want to say that I will go into the points mentioned by the hon. member for the Committee stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill on 1st May.

The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has given notice of certain amendments to Clauses 14 and 15 of this Bill. With one exception, I am prepared to accept these amendments suggested by him, though in an amended form. I intend to move them in my own wording when we come to this clause. The effect of these amendments will be that all the shareholders will be placed on the same footing with the subscribing banks; in other words, no shareholder shall have voting power for more than 5,000 shares. Therefore it will not be necessary to retain the definition of “subscribing bank”. And in order to bring that into line with the amendments I intend to move at a later Stage, I now want to move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

May I move the amendment of which I have given notice? I move—

That will make it clear that the directors have to be Union nationals, residing in the Union.

On page 635 of the Votes and Proceedings, there appears an amendment in the name of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) which I would like to move—

I have given careful consideration to this important amendment and it seems clear to me that it is in direct conflict with one of the most cardinal principles of the Bill. The clause under consideration provides that the stockholders— not the government—shall continue to manage the bank by empowering them to elect the majority of the directors. The amendment seeks to reverse this position by empowering the government to appoint the majority of directors. Under Section 165 no clause or amendment may be proposed in Committee which is in conflict with the Bill as read a second time and I am therefore unable to put the amendment.

I regret that the Rules of the House do not allow of my proposing this amendment. The principle is of cardinal importance to us. I understand that the Minister is prepared to meet us in this matter to some extent. I understand that the Minister himself was prepared to move an amendment to increase the number of Government nominees on the Board from five to six, and with the casting vote of the President, that would give the State a majority and therefore control over the bank. I understand that the Minister is not prepared to move his amendment as a result of your ruling, but in view of the interests at stake and in view of the importance of the matter, and as the Minister is inclined to meet us, I want to ask the Minister whether he will be prepared to report progress in order to enable the Minister give notice of an instruction.

No, the hon. the Minister cannot move an instruction which would empower the Committee to make an amendment which is in conflict with the principle of the Bill.

He may report progress and give notice of an instruction on Monday.

No. Such an instruction would not be permitted.

What then is the purpose of an instruction? May I read section 163 of the Rules and Orders—

But the hon. member may not move an instruction which is in conflict with the Bill as passed at the second reading. If the hon. member reads section 165 of the Standing Rules and Orders, he will see from the latter part of that section what the position 1s.

May I say this. I was prepared to consider such an amendment, not because I am in favour of that, but by way of meeting hon. members, and for that reason I am prepared to propose certain amendment to Clauses 14 and 15, which would fall within the scope of your ruling. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member.

I want to say that we on this side of the House appreciate the way in which the hon. Minister wants to meet us in regard to Clause 14. That is undoubtedly of importance, as Clause 14 deals with the number of shares which a person is allowed to hold in the bank, and the voting power resulting therefrom, and the amendment of the hon. Minister will undoubtedly tend to divide the voting power over a larger number of individuals.

But we are not entitled to do that.

I regret that the Rules of the House do not allow us to go further.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 8,

The most important clause to our mind is Clause 3. There you have ruled that it is impossible for us to move an alteration and now we come to Clause 8. That deals with the powers of the Board. During the second reading debate we pointed out that the source of the power of the Reserve Bank and its power of control over commercial banks, depends on its exclusive right it has today to buy and sell gold. Only because the Reserve Bank possess that sole right today, it has at its disposal foreign exchange without which the commercial banks cannot carry on. And in order to gain possession of foreign exchange for our import trade, they are compelled to go to the Reserve Bank with their hat in their hands in order to gain such foreign exchange with the assistance of the Reserve Bank from time to time. I want to move that the bank should have the exclusive right to buy our gold production and to sell same, the Rules of the House do not permit us to alter Clause 3, with the result that if I move that the Reserve Bank should have the sole right to buy and sell gold, it would mean that an enormous power will be granted to an institution on which private interests have a majority and therefore control ; that is to say we would hand over our whole gold-industrry to a directorate on which private interests have a majority. That is the difficulty in which I find myself, and I think the Government should now accept responsibility.

We have the power and we have to accept the responsibility.

I only want to point out why I am not going to move now that the sole right should be given to the bank, because then we would give control to an institution on which private interests have a majority vote, and that will mean that private interests would control our whole gold industry in South Africa. In view of that difficulty, I cannot move my amendment.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 14,

I move—

I indicated that I would be prepared to move certain amendments here myself, which are virtually the same as those of which the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) gave notice, but which do not go quite as far as he wants to go with regard to his proposal to add a new clause which will give the Government the power to purchase shares. That, in any case, can only be proposed if a recommendation from the Governor-General is obtained, and as I am not prepared to accept that amendment, I cannot go so far as to undertake to obtain that. But what I do propose is to omit “ten thousand” and to substitute “five thousand”, and to omit “subscribing bank” and to substitute“stockholder”. That will then have the effect that no stockholder will be able to own more than 5,000 shares in this bank. Of course, where there are to-day stockholders who own more than 5,000 shares, they may continue to own it, but nobody will have voting power for more than 5,000. There is a limitation, not only on the Bank but on stockholders too. No stockholder will then in future be able to own more than 5,000 shares, with protection of existing rights. As far as the English text is concerned, I move—

I am prepared to accept the amendment of the Minister, but I do want to go so far as to move formally a new sub-clause, which has been suggested by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges).

If you rule me out of order I cannot continue, but I wish to propose formally—

1. (3) The Government shall have the right to purchase, either by voluntary agreement or, failing such agreement, by legal compulsion, any stock in excess of five thousand pounds held by any stockholder or by a group of companies with interlocking directorates, at an amount not exceeding the average market price of the bank’s stock over the period of twelve months preceding a day three months prior to the date upon which a notice providing for such purchase is published in the Government Gazette.

I regret that I am unable to put this amendment without the recommendation of the Governor-General, as it would involve increased expenditure.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

I just wish to ask this. We handed in our amendments a considerable time ago, and they were accepted. They were printed in the Order Paper. This side of the House consequently concluded that they were in order.

They were printed for the first time yesterday.

But the result is that this side of the House concluded that the amendments were in order. This morning we have to find that the amendments which we prepared and which we wished to propose this morning, are out of order. Can you tell me how that happens?

The Minister is not responsible for that.

If we had known that the amendments were not in order, we could have drafted other amendments, better to secure the position of the bank and control over credit in the future. The fact that it was accepted and printed, brought us under the impression that it was in order.

I cannot say whether an amendment is in or out of order until such time as it is proposed here in Committee. Then only can I say whether or not it is in order.

On Clause 15,

I have stated that I would be prepared to limit the voting power of all stockholders to 5,000, and in order to do that, I shall now move further amendments, to which I will add the amendment of which I gave notice with regard to the provision that any stockholder entitled to vote must be domiciled in the Union. I now move—

Agreed to.

I intend to move an amendment to sub-clause (3). The amendment is printed on the Order Paper, viz.—

The clause will then read—

May I just explain. My difficulty in connection with that amendment is this, that there are stockholders who are not natural persons. There are stockholders who are companies, and a company cannot be a Union National. Therefore I cannot go further than the amendment which I propose, viz. that it is necessary for somebody who votes to be resident in the Union.

Amendment of the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses, Schedules and the Title having been agreed to, HOUSE RESUMED :

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered on 1st May.

On the motion of the Acting Prime Minister, the House adourned at 12.57 p.m.