Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has become necessary because of the Government’s difficulty in finding the ready cash with which to buy the farms, villages and towns which have been set aside for acquisition by the Bantu Trust in the implementation of the Government’s policy of fulfilling the quota requirements provided for in the 1936 legislation. Provision is made for the Trust to borrow money or to issue promissory notes in order to pay for the land. In the Second Reading debate I indicated that the Bill would have our support because it would augment the funds available to the Government for the purchase of this land. I also asked that these provisions be applied to the Transkei, and I am grateful to the Deputy Minister for indicating that this would in fact be done. In addition, I asked for information on the details of the promissory notes, namely what interest rates would be applicable and over what period the promissory notes would run, but I was unable to get any reply on that issue. I also agreed, Sir, that all the stages of the Bill should be dealt with, as we considered it to be a matter of urgency.

Unfortunately, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, the Deputy Minister said something which rather upset us. In discussing the measure I had made use of the English text of the Bill, which makes provision for “promissory notes” to be issued, and we understood that these promissory notes would be negotiable. Unfortunately, however, the Deputy Minister, in his reply to the debate, and in referring to “Staatseffekte” being available, said this—

In the Afrikaans text the word “skuldbewys” is used and not “promesse”, which is the usual Afrikaans translation of “promissory note”. If one looks in a dictionary, one finds that this is in fact so, and that an acknowledgement of debt is usually referred to as a “skuldbewys”. The Deputy Minister’s reply to us, that such a promissory note would not be negotiable, supported the impression that it was going to be an acknowledgment of debt and not a promissory note. It does not really matter whether “skuldbewys” includes “promissory note”, but it is unfortunate that the Government does not stick to one term.

Last year, when we amended the Land Bank Act, provision was made for a farmer to give the Land Bank promissory notes, and there the word “skuldbewys” was not used in the Afrikaans text. The word used was in fact “promesse”. I submit that in the ordinary context “skuldbewys” gives the impression merely of an acknowledgement of debt. The Deputy Minister has said that one could take a “skuldbewys” to one’s bank. I want to point out to him that if a farmer accepts a “skuldbewys”, or acknowledgment of debt, which he can use as security—it is undoubtedly so that he can use it as security—and he then wishes to borrow money from his bank on the security of that “skuldbewys” which he tenders to the bank, he has to borrow money at the bank rate, which is invariably higher than the statutory rate of interest to which the Deputy Minister referred. Therefore the holder of the security will in fact be losing if he uses it in a bank in this way. But, Sir, the fact is that this Bill, in providing for a “skuldbewys”, or promissory note, does give the farmer some relief. If a farmer or an owner of land in a town or village negotiates with the Government for the sale of his property, and he is prepared to accept a “skuldbewys” so that he can in fact dispose of his property—because at the moment the only people to whom such a person can dispose of his property is the Trust—he is at the mercy of tire Government. Notwithstanding this fact, we shall still support the Third Reading of this Bill in order to give relieve to these people.

I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will make it clear to us here in the Third Reading what he means by “verhandelbaar”. Does he in fact mean that a promissory note—the term used in the English text—is what he means by a “skuldbewys”? When he said that it would not be “verhandelbaar”, he was not telling us what the true position would be. He was speaking under a misapprehension, because it makes a big difference whether the instrument, whatever it is, given to the farmer or the landowner in the village or the town can be negotiated. But, in any event, it will still be a relief even if he only gets a mere acknowledgment of debt, an IOU, which he can use as security. Therefore we shall support the Bill, although it does not quite satisfy what we want.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the hon. member who has just spoken. I think we are dealing here with a very important Bill, especially to those people whose land is needed for the speedy consolidation of the homelands. As far as the argument concerning the terms “skuldbewys” or “promissory note” is concerned, I want to suggest, with respect, that the arguments advanced by the hon. member who has just spoken, as well as the arguments advanced in the Committee Stage, are really of academic interest and would be more appropriate to a debate between third-year law students. The fact remains that the Bantu Trust does not expropriate farmers’ land. The land is acquired through negotiation. That is not expropriation. The nature of the promissory note to be provided by the Bantu Trust to the seller of that land will also be determined by way of negotiation. If the seller of the land wants a negotiable instrument, I do not think there can be any doubt about the fact that the Bantu Trust will in fact give a negotiable instrument to that seller. If it should happen—I do not think it will—that the Bantu Trust should refuse to give such promissory note to the seller, the seller would be free to refuse to accept it. But in my opinion, this is not even of academic interest. Common sense tells us that any seller will insist on such promissory note’s being negotiable.

It will be made negotiable, and if the seller prefers the instrument not to be negotiable, that can be arranged, of course—just as it suits him. There is a world of difference, of course, but I do not want to take up the time of the House by conducting an academic debate on the terms “negotiable” and “transferable”. Even if an instrument is not negotiable, it still remains transferable. My learned friend will understand the difference. With these few words I mean to say that this whole debate is very technical indeed. As regards the instruments which the State will give to that person, these are fully covered, by the Afrikaans text as well. If we look at any authoritative Afrikaans-English legal dictionary, we shall see that the Afrikaans translation of “promissory note” is “skuldbewys”.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. In the first place I should like to indicate that this Bill has a serious implication, an implication which, with respect, should be attended to. Until now Parliament has on each occasion been required to vote money, to make money available in terms of the Bantu Trust and Land Act, and Parliament to some extent has a control over that situation. Admittedly, once the money has been voted, once the money is available to the Bantu Trust, it is in the discretion of the Trust as to how it deals with it. Now, however, we have a new situation and that is that by virtue of the right of the Bantu Trust to issue promissory notes, the Bantu Trust is committing the Government ahead as to what its expenditure is to be. A high degree of control will have to be exercised here, otherwise we may find ourselves in a situation where we are going to be faced with a fait accompli: that promissory notes have been issued, that they will have to be met on due date and that the money will have to be found. A factor which seems to have escaped the notice of those who dealt with the matter, is that to some extent this affects the Parliamentary control of funds.

The second point which is important is that by here agreeing to the issuing of promissory notes, we are entering upon a short-term debt situation. Short-term debt is, of course, an unsatisfactory situation from the State’s point of view. However attractive it may be from the farmer’s point of view, it is unattractive from the State’s point of view. We have already had the example of what happened with borrowing on the part of the State and the Reserve Bank last year, and one only needs to look at the state of our reserves at the present moment in order to see the implications of short-term borrowing when one does not look at the consequences of what one is doing. This short-term aspect therefore has serious implications for any Government in these particular circumstances.

There is no question of the 1936 legislation having to be honoured. There is no question of farmers who are now in a predicament, as far as their land is concerned, having to be helped out of that predicament. We therefore support this legislation because there is a debacle which the Government has created, and we cannot allow innocent people to be adversely affected by this situation. [Interjections.] That is really what it is all about. The one warning that has to be issued here, and that must be spelled out loud and clear, is that the ideology of this Government is getting South Africa into economic trouble. There has been a lot of talk about others being dangerous, but let me say there is nothing more dangerous for South Africa at the moment than the ideology of this Government. That is what is causing the difficulty in South Africa; that is where our economic troubles emanate from.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville says that the Government has created a debacle in South Africa. Last year, when the Government submitted proposals to Parliament to the effect that certain land should be acquired, did his party not vote in favour of those proposals? The answer is “yes”. Now, however, the hon. member says that the Government has created a debacle in the country. However, the Government has done nothing of the kind. When he and this side voted in favour of those proposals, no one was creating a debacle in the country. He had better go and look up what the word “debacle” means.

Effect is being given here to the undertaking which was given in 1936 by the then Government and which has been given by this side of the House as well, as we shall proceed with it, no matter what those hon. members say. And we shall do it within the period we originally planned for. We shall definitely carry out this programme successfully.

I think I should explain to hon. members what our intentions are in buying against deferred payment. Perhaps it will then be better understood why this amendment to the law is necessary. All we intend to do is to go to a farmer or a landowner and to offer him a certain amount of the purchase price in cash; we take over his bonds or other obligations and we offer to pay the rest of the money by a specific date, at the current statutory interest rate. However, we cannot say at this stage exactly what the duration of the term will be. We do not know whether it will be a short or a long term. We should prefer to have a fairly long term, because if we make it a short term—say three years, for example—we may find ourselves in the situation predicted by the hon. member for Yeoville. Then the State would soon have obligations before the purchasing programme has been concluded. In other words, it would be advantageous to the State if we could first conclude the purchasing programme and then start on the payments. For that reason we shall negotiate with the owners and tell them when and how we are going to pay them. In effect it means that we shall give them a firm guarantee or assurance as well as the interest rate and the date of payment.

I now come to the academic question of whether the Afrikaans translation of this Bill or its English text contains the correct wording. I have made enquiries to find out whether that which we intend to do can in fact be done in terms of either of the two texts. I have been assured by the law advisers as well as by other people concerned with financial matters that we shall in fact be able to do it in terms of either of the two texts. I want to point out to the hon. member for Griqualand East that I have consulted the English-Afrikaans legal dictionary written by V. G. Hiemstra, Judge of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, and H. L. Gonin, Professor of Latin, University of Pretoria. In that dictionary it says that a “promissory note” is a “promesse of skuldbewys”. So there is no problem as to whether we shall in fact be able, in terms of the Bill, to do what we intend to do.

In actual fact, the Bill is nothing but enabling legislation to give borrowing powers to the S. A. Bantu Trust. We shall negotiate with the landowner and then the promissory note, the “skuldbewys” or “promesse”, or whatever the hon. members want to call it, can be made negotiable in terms of our agreement with the landowner. It is also possible that it may be decided not to make it negotiable. The decision as to whether or not it will be made negotiable will depend on our agreement with the landowner. The fact is just that we want to have as many instruments as possible available to us. If it has to be a non-negotiable instrument, we must be able to offer a non-negotiable instrument, and if it has to be a negotiable instrument, we must be able to offer that. It is true that if we were to borrow on the short term, this might hold advantages for the farmer, but it would impose certain obligations on the State. That is why I believe that the instruments provided for in the Bill will not be used on a large scale.

But this is not all. Since we debated this matter on Friday afternoon, the Minister of Finance has approved the use of long-term Government securities. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has also approved the use of long-term Government securities. We would prefer this because its effect on the State would be different. I consequently foresee that we shall prefer to use long-term Government securities. I feel that long-term Government securities will even be more acceptable to the buying public as well. For that reason the offer we shall make, especially at this stage, where we shall be commencing within the next week or two, will firstly be an amount in cash. Secondly we shall offer long-term Government securities, and thirdly we shall offer to take over, by way of long-term Government securities, the bonds on the owners’ land held by other financial institutions. So the question which arose will largely be rendered academic. I foresee that we shall have no problems in practice and that we shall be able to expedite the programme by means of the measure which is before the House at the moment.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when this debate was adjourned on Friday, I tried to deal with three specific issues and I should like to come briefly back to them. The first of them was that this is a Bill which is designed to deal with White teachers only. The question that has to be posed is whether, in fact, it is in the teachers’ interest to have a single-race council. Will it not be in the teachers’ interest to have a truly professional body in which all will find it possible to participate on an equal qualifications basis? Again I specifically want to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention the fact that the single-race basis of this council will undoubtedly affect the international status of the council and will also affect the international professional status of teachers in South Africa. I do not wish to repeat what I said on Friday, but this is a most important issue from a broad educational point of view. It is an issue that cannot be ignored.

The second issue was the question of the crisis in education, the fact that some posts are not filled at all while others are filled by unqualified or inadequately qualified people. On Friday afternoon, when I spoke of there being a crisis in education, howls went up in the House. Yet, at the same time, the figures I have, which reflect the position in the Transvaal, tell a story which is almost unbelievable as regards the present state of education. I want to quote from official figures related to the Transvaal. I have before me a report which says—

The actual number of teachers involved and also the relevant percentages are given. I shall read out the percentages only.

The figures in respect of other classes and especially Std. 6 reflect an even worse position. How anybody, in the face of those figures, can dare to say that there is no crisis in education, passes understanding. If the hon. the Minister dares say that there is no crisis in education, he cannot be aware of what is happening to education in South Africa.

The third point I wish to make concerns the real test of this Bill, i.e. what it will do for the teacher and what, therefore, it does for education as a whole. The teacher in South Africa has a choice and, in that regard, he is faced with a dilemma. That choice is a choice that has faced teachers in other parts of the world as well. The question is whether the teacher should be part of a profession or whether he should be part of a trade. The dilemma between the status and benefits on the one hand and the strength involved in being a trade on the other hand is a dilemma which has bedevilled the teaching profession on a world-wide basis. In the United Kingdom the teachers have chosen to be regarded as a trade. They have virtually chosen trade union status. The teachers’ associations in the United Kingdom are affiliated to the Trade Union Council. In the United Kingdom strikes and everything else revolve around the wage demands. One of the problems the hon. the Minister has to solve is whether in fact, by withholding reasonable remuneration from teachers, he is not forcing the teachers’ profession in South Africa into the trade union camp in terms of which they would rather be seen as trade unionists than professionals. This is the dilemma. I believe that the teaching profession in South Africa does not want to be regarded as a trade but specifically as a profession. The teachers have battled to achieve this status for themselves. This Bill, in fact, is designed to help teachers along the road of professionalism. However the difficulty is that this council is a council without the true ring of professionalism, and such a council does not solve the problem, as has, in fact, been demonstrated in Scotland. There they have a council and yet the profession there has not been put on the right road because the authorities were not prepared to give it the full powers which a professional council has to have. I submit that true professionalism requires more than this Bill offers. Can the teaching profession really be a profession and can a professional council give the status that is required when, firstly, the teachers are not free to determine their own code of conduct but in this respect require the approval of the Committee of Heads of Education? Secondly; can it be a profession when the council plays no greater part in training than serving in an advisory capacity? Thirdly; can it be a profession when not the council, but the Committee of Heads of Education decides on the qualifications required for membership? Fourthly; can it be a professional council when it cannot play a role in the remuneration and in the conditions of service of its members? The issue must be fairly and squarely raised whether teaching can also be a profession while control is exercised over it which makes it part of the Public Service. Should this not be a matter for urgent investigation by the hon. the Minister?

No one is going to be able to compare the status of this council favourably with the status of the councils that exist for other professions in South Africa, and this is the dilemma which we face. This is also why this Bill does not go far enough. Though we say it does not go far enough, the Bill is nevertheless a move in the direction of professionalism, but registration and disciplining alone do not create the status of a profession. Should not the hon. the Minister now apply his mind to the issue of actually promoting teaching as a profession? May I put two questions before him? Firstly, there is the question of administrative functions of teachers, their training in modern business practices and personnel management. Is that not a matter that needs attention, the question, not only of income, but also of the need to lead the reasonable life that a professional man wants to lead? Lastly: The practising of a profession also means the exercising within the limits of professional ethical rules, of a degree of individuality and initiative. How much of this freedom can be exercised by the principal of a school—let alone the ordinary teacher—within the mass of red tape and ideological limits that represent the education structure of South Africa?

The child needs education to equip him for learning, but he also needs to develop a sense of social responsibility, of loyalty and of confidence. The child also seeks to achieve status and independence. He looks to success in the future and he looks to self-fulfilment. The teacher needs to serve as an example of these things. The pupil asks whether he who teaches, has achieved these ambitions for himself, and if he does not always see this in his teacher, it is not the teacher who has failed. It is the Government who has failed to create a profession in the true sense. This is what I believe to be the challenge facing the hon. the Minister. His predecessors have failed to meet that challenge and we hope that he will be able to meet it.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion no one can be an expert in all fields. Last Friday, while I was listening to the hon. member for Yeoville, I wondered why he had to be the first speaker of the PRP. Then I noticed that the hon. member for Rondebosch was not present and from this I concluded that the hon. member for Yeoville was probably delivering the speech of the hon. member for Rondebosch. What struck me, however, was that there were several things which the hon. member for Yeoville said which I could not believe the hon. member for Rondebosch would have said, because in my opinion he knows more about education than the hon. member for Yeoville does.

Today, however, the hon. member for Yeoville continued and made another shameful statement by suggesting that the policy of the Government would be instrumental in causing the teaching profession to move in a trade union direction. Now I want to give the hon. member for Yeoville the assurance that as long as he lives, he will never be able to free himself from that statement, at least, not as far as the teaching profession is concerned. As far as I am concerned, it was a tremendous insult to any teacher. I want to tell the hon. member that if he wants to do the teaching profession a service, and if he wants to serve education as such, he must refrain from speaking about education. It is very clear that he does not have the necessary background knowledge. If he had, he would not have made some of the statements which he made today. [Interjections.] Furthermore, I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I find it a pity that he proceeded to launch an attack last Friday on the predecessor of the hon. the Minister of National Education, when he said—

I think, Sir, that it is not fair to make this type of statement about a person in his absence, especially in the light of the fact that the hon. member definitely does not know what it took to reach this point, a stage which makes this a red letter day for every teacher, for the teachers’ associations and for the Federal Council.

Now I should like to deal with a few of the matters which were raised by the hon. member. In the first place I want to tell him that it is very dangerous to try to compare the teaching profession as such to the legal profession or to the medical profession. It is dangerous in the sense that the legal profession and the medical profession are made up of a group of people who have certain professional and academic qualifications. Once they have gained these qualifications they are a group on their own; they are their own employers, if I may put it like this. In contradistinction to that, we have the teaching profession, people who also have academic and professional qualifications but whose biggest, and, to a large extent, sole employer remains the provincial education departments and the Department of National Education. When we overlook this fact, we are unable to understand this legislation fully. When we deal with teachers’ qualifications, the reason why the Committee of Heads of Education has to lay down such qualifications, is that they are the employers of the people who qualify.

I also want to deal with the point that the teachers’ council should be open to all races. The hon. member for Durban Central also raised this point. It amazes me that the chief spokesman of the United Party, of the Official Opposition, a person who is a teaching man himself, should also have walked into this trap. I see on the Order Paper amendments in the name of the hon. member for Durban Central dealing with the omission of the word “Whites”. Surely, Sir, it is very clear from the reference to a teachers’ council for Whites, that we are dealing with a council which has to meet the demands of the White section of our population. White education has problems which are peculiar to itself, as have Black education and Coloured education. Moreover, Black teachers are employees of various departments. As from October they will be employees also of the Transkei. Within the White area they are employees of various departments, and of individual farmers on farms, for example, in the small Bantu schools in the rural areas. Therefore it is inconceivable that all these people can be brought together in a White teachers’ council with the objectives envisaged by this Bill.

One of the principal objectives of the teachers’ council is the drawing up of a code of conduct. Surely it is clear, Sir, that one cannot have various races together in a single council when the content of a code of conduct has to be decided? Surely it is inconceivable that such a code of conduct would satisfy the Whites as well as the Blacks and Coloureds. The different races have their different cultures and traditions and their different customs, which must inevitably have an effect on the code of conduct which is drawn up. Therefore I cannot but reject that argument with the contempt which it deserves.

There is also another reason why we cannot have representation for the different races on the teachers’ council. Let us look at teachers’ qualifications. We find that there were 62 879 Bantu teachers in 1974. Only 8 581 of them had a qualification higher than senior certificate, that is, senior certificate as well as a primary education certificate, senior certificate plus a secondary education certificate, or perhaps a degree. Only 13,6% of all Bantu teachers had such post-matric training. Now can hon. members understand that if we were to allow only this 13,6% to register with the professional teachers’ council, it would be discrimination of the worst degree against the remaining 86,4% who cannot register. Surely, it is inconceivable for something like this to happen. Now it may immediately be said that the Government is to blame for the inadequate numbers of qualified people. However, I want to point out at once that the number of Bantu teachers doubled itself in the period from 1962 to 1974. The number of Bantu students, including those at the University of South Africa, increased from 1 637 to 7 866 in the period from 1957 to 1975. In other words, active steps are being taken in this regard. At this juncture, however, it is not possible to establish a teachers’ council catering for all the different race groups. A fine thing though, is that the possibility of co-operation between the professional White teachers’ council and councils which may be established for the other groups, is implicit in this very same legislation. Therefore, at some later stage consideration may be given to making provision for an umbrella body, a council catering for the needs of all the different races.

The hon. member for Durban Central also said that anyone could become a teacher at present without their being subject to the disciplinary measures of the teachers’ council as everybody did not have to have themselves registered. However, this is a half-truth, and it seems to me as though the hon. member did not do his homework very well. After all, it is very clear that this only applies to teachers who cannot be appointed in a full-time capacity. They will be able to teach—we are very grateful for this—without registering but they are not free from disciplinary measures as they are subject to the conditions of employment of their employer, as has been the case over the years. Consequently it is untrue to advocate that any person may become a teacher without that person being subject to any disciplinary measures whatsoever. But that is not all. The hon. member for Durban Central, as well as the hon. member for Yeoville, objected to the professional teachers’ council to be established, having advisory powers only. It is very clear to me that this must be so, and I say this, once again on the basis of the argument that these people differ from medical and legal men in that these men are their own employers while teachers are not. For this reason teachers have been asking over the years to have a say in matters affecting the teachers. We find this in this legislation.

We must not lose sight of the fact that there is a difference between a professional teachers’ council and a teachers’ association. The same difference is also found between the Medical Council and the Medical Association. The professional teachers’ council can be compared to the Medical Council. The teachers’ associations—at the moment there are 12 which are recognized—can be compared to the Medical Association. After all, it is very clear that the professional teachers’ council has as its objective the improvement of the status of the teaching profession and teachers, just as the concern of the Medical Council is the status of doctors. The concern of teachers’ associations, however, is the personal interests of their members, matters such as conditions of service, salaries, leave, etc. In the same way the Medical Association concerns itself with these things affecting its members.

Now, the hon. member for Yeoville waxed lyrical about teachers earning too little and about including the conditions of service of teachers in the functions of the professional teachers’ council. With all respect, I think in this the hon. member for Yeoville revealed his ignorance as well as the fact that he does not understand the Bill. This Bill seeks to establish a professional teachers’ council, a council which may guard over the status of teachers as such. It has nothing to do with conditions of service. The teachers’ associations are there for that purpose.

Since I am dealing with this, I want to say at once that in the end the professional teachers’ council will not be able to exist without the teachers’ associations. However, I have heard that there are some people who wonder what purpose of the teachers’ associations will serve after the teachers’ council has been established. It would be an evil day if the professional teachers’ council were to replace teachers’ associations. I want to point out that the professional teachers’ council is being established for the teachers by the teachers. At the moment we have 12 teachers’ associations and the second schedule lays down the basis for the representation of teachers’ associations on the teachers’ council. At the present moment the 12 teachers’ associations may elect 21 teachers to the council. In addition the five administrators have to nominate five teachers to the professional teachers’ council. The Minister has the right to nominate another person. Therefore, it is very clear that to the extent of 99% the teachers’ council will consist of teachers, practising teachers. This is what teachers have been asking for all these years and this is what they will now find in the teachers’ council. Therefore it is important for the teachers’ associations to realize that their representation on the teachers’ council will be in proportion to their membership.

It is very important for every teacher, whatever province he may be in, to realize that all of them should be members of the various teachers’ associations, as their representation on the teachers’ council will be determined in proportion to the membership of their associations. Another thing, there is a world of difference between the functions of the teachers’ associations, as I indicated a moment ago, and the objectives of the professional teachers’ council. The two are not in conflict with each other, but in fact complementary to each other. Today I want to address a serious appeal to teachers in the Republic of South Africa to each and every one of them, to become, if at all possible, a member of a teachers’ association. In fact, it will be a happy day for me when compulsory membership of teachers’ associations is introduced. I know what problems attach to this. If compulsory membership of teachers’ associations becomes reality the day when there is talk in South Africa of a central system of education, I shall be very happy.

Now I want to come back to the Bill itself. What have teachers been asking for all these years and what have they been looking forward to? They wanted the establishment of a statutory body of teachers so that they might have a mouth-piece to put their case. They want to use a statutory body such as this so as to give them the necessary status. We have this in this Bill. The council, a statutory body, is being established with the very object of guarding over the status of the teacher. For the rest, they want representation on the council themselves.

As I said a moment ago in connection with the constitution of the council, we also find this in the Bill as it is before this House at the moment I want to add that we also find in this Bill provision for a professional code of conduct to be drawn up. This has always been felt as a shortcoming in education, i.e. the lack of a code of conduct binding everyone. Now we find, in terms of clause 15(1)(d), that such a code of conduct may be drawn up in concurrence with the Committee of Heads of Education. It is a good thing that this is so, because there is close liaison between the Committee of Heads of Education and the teachers as the teachers actually have to go and work there. Therefore it is important that such a code is to be drawn up in concurrence with the Committee of Heads of Education.

You should have a little more confidence in the teachers.

Sir, that hon. member dares to tell me that we should have more confidence in the teachers. If there is anyone who should not walk into the trap, it is that hon. member, because he made statements in this debate which definitely were not indicative of confidence in the teachers. Therefore he should not make an interjection like that. The issue here is not confidence in the teachers; it is that we are at least being sensible because we realize that we must work in close collaboration with others. What is more, Mr. Speaker, we also find in paragraphs (a) and (b) of clause 18 that an inquiry may be instituted into alleged contraventions of this professional code of conduct, and that certain punitive measures may be applied on conviction.

I also want to say that one of the most important measures in this legislation is clause 18(d), which clearly provides that this professional teachers’ council may advise the Minister in connection with the requirements for training and also in connection with the requirements for admission to a course for such training. In other words, it refers to selection. I want to point out to the hon. member for Durban Central that here, too, it is not a question of our not having confidence in the teachers. When teachers have been brought together in a body and can talk to the Committee of Heads of Education and ultimately negotiate with the Minister in connection with the requirements laid down for the teaching profession, we are satisfied. With due respect, to want to compare the professional teachers’ council to the National Education Council, as the hon. member for Durban Central wants to do, is to take the wrong point of view. These are two different bodies with totally different approaches and functions. This council is a council of teachers while the National Education Council is constituted of various bodies, in which possibly only four teachers may serve. Therefore, these two bodies have nothing to do with each other. I think that people are now being offered the opportunity to have a say, from the side of practical teaching, in matters affecting them.

Sir, we are also grateful that provision is made in this Bill for the necessary professional teachers’ qualifications, of which we find a definition in clause 1. We are grateful to have these summarized there. Furthermore, I want to say that the fact that every person who wants to enter the teaching profession in a full-time permanent capacity, must be registered, is a step in the right direction. Here the emphasis falls on people in a full-time, permanent capacity who already have the necessary teachers’ qualifications. Such people must register.

Then there is also another group which may be registered provisionally in terms of another clause. However, there remains a group of people who are attached to schools in a temporary capacity. I have in mind, for example, a person who has a B.A. degree and a subject like German III. A person like this may perhaps be approached to teach German because of the shortage of teachers. Such a person does not have a professional teacher’s qualification and cannot qualify to register with the professional teachers’ council. However, a person like this may still provide excellent service. Those temporary people are not registered, but the point is, as I said at the beginning, that these people provide valuable services and are subject to certain disciplinary measures. To allow these people simply to register with the professional teachers’ council, would necessarily mean lowering the status of the profession, which we are seeking to raise by means of this legislation, in that we would be allowing people to register with this council without their having the necessary professional qualifications. For this reason they must unfortunately be prevented from registering.

I conclude. I want to agree with the hon. member for Durban Central that the status of the teachers will not be ensured by this professional teachers’ council alone. The teachers themselves will have to work to ensure their own status, day by day, as in the past and in the future too, by means of the quality of their teaching, their conduct at school and outside school as far as cultural matters are concerned, etc. The teacher himself therefore, has a task in connection with establishing his own status. It is also true that the community, too, has a special duty in connection with the establishment of the status of the teaching profession. Even if the teacher goes out of his way to do everything possible, even if we have a professional teachers’ council, and even if the Government offers better conditions of service—which are necessary—teaching as a profession, will regain the status which it had seven, eight, nine decades ago, only when there is an reorientation in the community in connection with who and what this profession is. Therefore I want to ask that the community accepts that the teaching profession is the profession which produces the scientists, people whom we need desperately. The teaching profession is the profession which produces the doctors, also people whom we need desperately. It is the profession which produces the farmer too, because we are living in times today when we no longer want the illiterate as farmer, but the scientific farmer. Only when that approach is there, in the community and the nation as such, shall we raise teaching to the level on which we should like to have it and give it the status which we should like it to have in the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Virginia speaks as a member of the teaching profession and he spoke enthusiastically in so far as most aspects of the Bill were concerned. However, when he referred to the code of conduct, he seemed to be quite satisfied with the arrangements which applied in terms of this Bill, namely the formulation and compilation of the code of conduct. But I believe he should look very carefully at clause 15 of the Bill. If he does, he will notice that the body envisaged by the Bill is in rather a weak position. The wording in the relevant clause is “in concurrence with the Committee”, viz. the Committee of Heads of Education. It is a weak position for any statutory body to find itself in, and I believe that the hon. member will have no difficulty at all in supporting the amendment put forward by my colleague the hon. member for Durban Central, wherein he seeks to put this body in a stronger position by the insertion of the words “in consultation with”. The hon. member for Virginia also sought to make comparisons between the Medical Association and the teachers’ associations. I believe that in that respect his remarks are valid, but when he comes to the question of trying to equate the statutory teachers’ association, being created by this Bill, with the Medical Council, there is just no comparison. I should like to refer him to some of the powers which the Medical Council have, which to me seem singularly absent from any suggestion in this Bill. The Medical Council can appoint examiners, they can approve of training schools and they can recognize or reject any qualifications. They have vast powers as a statutory body.

The hon. member clearly indicated that he did not regard the Medical Council as being comparable to this statutory body, and here I agree with him. I shall come back to that a little later. But even if he takes the powers of the Nursing Council—and I believe that this is a profession which can compare more closely with that of the teaching profession—he will see that they have powers to appoint examiners and moderators, to approve of training-schools, to undertake inspections of hospitals, etc. I see nothing in this Bill which gives this teachers’ statutory body that sort of authority or power.

My colleague, the hon. member for Durban Central, has given a very concise exposition of the UP attitude to this Bill. He indicated, as other speakers have, that approaches from the teaching profession have covered a number of years. He referred to the 1964 draft Bill, and he also indicated that he considered that the Bill at present before us was a compromise between the teachers and the Department of Education. In this respect I believe that he is absolutely right.

I now want to come to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Algoa. Unfortunately he does not seem to be in the House at the moment. He said the Bill enjoyed his “voile ondersteuning”. Then he went on to say that it did not provide some of the requirements laid down, by the teaching profession I take it. He also drew attention to some “onbillikhede teenoor onderwysers” and referred particularly to existing legislation and ordinances. Then he indicated that there were some other weak points which he regarded as being of minor importance. The hon. member for Algoa led me to expect that he would join the UP in submitting amendments to the Bill during the Committee Stage in order to overcome some of the weaknesses which he believed existed in the present Bill and in order to strengthen the status of the teaching profession as a whole. I say this because, unless my memory serves me wrongly, during this session, almost for the first time during my 15 years in Parliament, members of the Government party have exercised their right to bring forward amendments. They did so in respect of some Bills during this session. I therefore wonder why the hon. member for Algoa did not seek to improve the Bill which he criticized, albeit very mildly. It was nevertheless criticism. I think the hon. member for Algoa and his colleagues have shown a reluctance to come out and fight for improvements for the teaching profession, thereby missing the first real opportunity they have had to assist in the formation of a statutory body over the last 40 years. This has left the initiative to the Official Opposition and, as the Order Paper reveals, we in the UP have not shirked our responsibility in seeking to make this Bill as effective and efficient as possible.

I want to ask the hon. member for Algoa, in his absence, what he had in mind when he made his speech. Did he feel that this Bill did not provide the teaching profession with the autonomy of expression which it requested? I must confess that is the impression I gained from his speech. Does he feel that the National Education Policy Act, No. 39 of 1967, and the amending Act of 1969, should be re-examined and amended? He did not say so, but does he feel that they should be amended in order to bring the thinking in this Bill in line with the intentions of those Acts? Does he feel that this teachers’ council will not be meaningful until it has had a greater share, in scope and powers, in the control of standards in teacher training? Does he feel that the composition of the National Education Council should again be revised to provide for a more balanced council with less emphasis on teacher training? If that were done, this teachers’ council could become much more meaningful. He had the opportunity to raise these matters, but he did not do so. I trust he will assist us in the Committee Stage.

The delay in introducing this Bill is to be regretted. It has taken so many years to arrive at a conclusion and to decide to bring this Bill before the House of Assembly. It is a straightforward, uncomplicated and in many respects a non-contentious Bill, and yet it has been backwards and forwards, over the years, between the State and the teaching organizations. In my mind’s eye I can go back to 1962 when I had the honour of serving on the Select Committee which dealt with the National Education Advisory Council Bill. Despite the glowing prediction made by the then Minister, Senator Jan de Klerk, it was found necessary, with almost monotonous regularity, to amend the Act. He spoke of the council and the work it would perform, and yet within five years, in 1967, he had to amend the Act and constitute a new council. We then had the teachers’ crisis.

When was that?

In 1967-’68. The Government then appointed a Select Committee on the training of teachers. The Select Committee, on which I had the honour also to serve, was converted into a commission. The commission submitted a Bill. Obviously the intention of that particular Bill was to emphasize the training of teachers. However, a new national council was established. It is interesting to refer to the report of the commission of 1969. The short title of the Bill which was submitted by the commission read—

I believe the events which have taken place since then have led to the establishment of this council for Whites.

I want to refer to some of the clauses, because I believe it would be relevant to do so in the light of the amendments which we intend moving and which appear on the Order Paper. Firstly, I want to refer to the objects of the council. I believe the wording of this particular clause must surely be a disappointment to the teaching profession as a whole because the words which are used are so mild—

Which clause is that?

Clause 3. I realize this is a far cry from the consolidated report to the National Advisory Education Council because a survey of the attitude of teachers indicated that teachers in general felt that the authorities could raise the status of teachers by establishing a teaching council which would be vested with the same authority and functions as the S.A. Medical Council. It was felt that such a teaching council could improve the teachers’ position. Frankly, I believe that that was rather an ambitious thought. The hon. member for Virginia has already indicated that there are vast differences between the functions and purposes of the S.A. Medical Council and a teaching council. I agree that that is the position.

It has generally been agreed during this debate that the teachers themselves are in a unique position since the majority of them are either in the employ of the central Government or that of the provincial administrations. I suggest that if one wants to look for any equivalent form or comparison, one has to refer to the S.A. Nursing Council, because in my opinion the Nursing Council represents a profession which comprises many professional people who render service to the central Government or to the provincial administrations.

However, we cannot deal with clause 3 in isolation; we must consider it together with clause 15 which deals with “registration, keeping of register, and payment of registration and annual fees and code of conduct”. This is where I believe the autonomy of this council is strictly limited, because we have the provision that the code of conduct must be framed in concurrence with the Committee of Heads of Education.

Carrying on from clauses 3 and 15, I come to clause 18 which deals with the powers of the council. It provides that the council can institute inquiries, impose penalties and it can advise on training. It would therefore appear that, although after many years the teachers are now being granted a Bill that provides statutory recognition of their organization, as a council they will find themselves subservient to the Committee of Heads and to the National Education Council.

I now wish to refer briefly to clause 4, which deals with the constitution of the council. According to the Bill, one member, who will not necessarily be a teacher, will be appointed by the Minister, five teachers will be appointed members by the different Administrators and other persons will be appointed by the teachers’ associations from their own ranks, such persons having been elected on the basis specified in Schedule 2. I submit that it is of interest to compare this with the Nursing Act, which in effect limits the membership of the council established in terms of that Act. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he considers this limitation imposed in the Nursing Act, which lays down that members of the relevant council will be limited to South African citizens. There is no such provision in this Bill. South Africa has called upon the services of teachers from overseas and I believe that these teachers have rendered signal service to the profession in the work they have done. I believe, too, that some of these, having enjoyed the benefits of this country, have become South African citizens. However, I believe it is also true that some have retained their ties with their countries of origin and were not prepared to identify themselves fully with South Africa by becoming South African citizens. I suggest that, when we are dealing with the highest statutory body in the land as far as the teaching profession is concerned, we would do well to consider whether those people who have had ample opportunity to claim South African citizenship but have not done so, should be eligible for election to this council.

The composition of the council envisages a larger council than that provided for in previous legislation. In view of the fact that 12 teachers’ associations are already listed in Schedule 1, the minimum representation from that source will be 12. However, estimates show that the total membership of the council, including the five teachers appointed by the Administrators and the person appointed by the Minister, could well be as many as 30 members. The point I want to make as regards this particular aspect is that, whereas one person is appointed to represent the Minister and five to represent the provinces, I believe some provision should be made for the appointment of alternates in respect of the appointment by the Minister, the appointments by the Administrators and the members elected by the associations. I believe that, if the council is to be fully functional, it should at all times be fully represented. Therefore, if provision were made for alternates to attend when elected or appointed members are unable to attend, this goal could be achieved. In my humble opinion this is a deficiency in the Bill. I believe that there is a valid argument for the necessity of provision being made for alternates. The great majority of members of this council are teachers. After years of service such teachers elected by the associations are entitled to long leave. As a result of that, they may be unable to attend statutory or special meetings. Therefore I would ask the hon. the Minister to view the amendment we have put forward in this respect sympathetically. I should also like to point out to him that a number of very good precedents can be found in existing legislation where provision is made for either permissive permission, or obligatory permission for the appointment of alternates to act in the place of members appointed by virtue of their particular qualifications.

There are other amendments on the Order Paper which we on this side of the House will in due course place before the Minister for his consideration. However, I have dealt with those which I felt should be enlarged upon at this stage in order that the Minister would have an opportunity to consider the motive which prompted us to move those particular amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Berea had a great deal to say about the amendments placed on the Order Paper by hon. members of the Official Opposition. Those amendments will be dealt with during the Committee Stage by the hon. the Minister. The hon. member will therefore excuse me if I do not react further to his speech, although in the course of my speech I shall in fact refer to certain matters which he mentioned.

Before confining myself to certain aspects of the Bill before us, I deem it necessary to consider a few elements which underline the urgency and the necessity for this Bill. Primarily this Bill concerns the teacher, his position and his place in the community. The teacher is the preceptor and educator and is central to this Bill. The Bill can therefore be seen as an instrument by which the teacher may take his rightful place in the community. However, a fact we must bear in mind is that in past years, teachers have been leaving the teaching profession in increasing numbers. This applies to both male and female teachers. They have taken up new employment, mainly in the private sector.

Now it is true, unfortunately, that the teaching profession lends itself to this. A teacher is an academically trained person who is particularly attractive to both the private and the public sectors. Both these sectors need people with an academic training with a view to the performance of certain duties. Furthermore the public and the private sectors offer substantially higher remuneration than that available in the teaching profession. They also concentrate in particular on the more experienced teacher; on those who have been teaching for some time. The offers are made so attractive that many teachers are unable—from an economic point of view—to refuse them. What is the result? A good and well-trained teacher who is already facing a matric class or is ready to take over that class, gives notice, and within three months the school in question is stranded without a mathematics, physics and chemistry, English or other teacher, and a widespread search for a replacement to fill that vacancy has to be instituted.

What happens in most cases is that such vacancies are filled by people with less training and less experience. This necessarily has a detrimental effect on pupils’ achievements. During 1974, 2 539 teachers left teaching in the Transvaal. 1 978 of these resigned. The balance of 561 left teaching owing to retirement, death or dismissal. What is of importance is that of the 1 978 teachers who left teaching, 1 545 were women and 433 were men. It may be accepted, in all reasonableness, that those men entered a different occupation, a different profession or a different business. The same undoubtedly applies to a large percentage of the women who resigned from the teaching profession.

At the beginning of 1975 only 162 men entered teaching in the Transvaal—that is to say, a drop of 271 in the number of trained male teachers whose services have to be done without. This causes teachers to find themselves in the situation where they face a class and have to teach a subject for which they are not, in fact, fully trained. I want to refer, too, to the statistics mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville. The MEC in charge of education in the Transvaal, Mr. Van der Merwe Brink, said in the course of a reply in the Transvaal Provincial Council that the number of teachers teaching subjects for which they were not fully trained was as follows: Mathematics 35%, physics and chemistry 50% and biology 49%, to mention only three subjects. What is still more important is that the position with regard to teachers teaching in Std. VI and VII is the following: Mathematics 55%, general science 54% and biology 65%. A popular conclusion is that the salary structure is the primary cause of this trend. That is why we are grateful that something positive is being done about the salary structure of the teacher in order to place this profession, too, on a competitive basis. But, Sir, the solution is certainly not as obvious and simple as that. Teaching is a profession with a claim to professional recognition. That is why we have this legislation before us. Education is just as little a subdivision of the overall administration of the State as is the medical profession or the engineering profession, or any other profession. The medical profession and the legal profession, inter alia, are characterized and identified by their distinctiveness. Members of these professions are distinguished by a prefix to the name of the practitioner of the professions concerned. In medicine it is “doctor”, for lawyers “advocate”, for clergymen “reverend”, etc. The teachers do not seek such titles, or is this perhaps an idea which could be pondered? The teacher must be accepted by society and the community as that important figure in our community who sees to the training and education of the children. Sir, it is a matter of deep concern to the teacher that he knows that he or she has lost his or her true value as an educator in the eyes of the community.

The community, and the parents in particular, see the present-day teacher merely as an official of the State, as someone who is employed by the State and remunerated by the State to get his child through matric with the greatest possible success. Then when the child achieves good results and passes one standard after the other with flying colours, the good qualities and achievements of father and mother’s dear child are bruited abroad. Then it is the child who has achieved such wonderful success. But when that same dear Johnnie—let us call him Johnnie, like the hon. member for Durban Central—does not make the desired progress, if his achievements deteriorate, then it is the fault of the teacher. All the blame is laid at his door, without reservation; he gets all the blame, and even in the presence of the child the teacher is disparaged and belittled. In the meantime, what is the result? The child is in a situation which he believes to be the fault of the teacher. But he forgets that it is he himself who has not done his homework properly and that it is he himself who did not prepare himself properly for the test or an examination. No, it is Sir’s fault, because father and mother said so. Then, when this child grows up, when he has to choose a career, what is he going to choose? All the professions are put before him, medicine, law, engineering, the church, etc. However, teaching is not even considered as a possibility, because was it not the teacher who was the cause of his achieving such poor results? Nor is education considered as a possible choice of career by the good Johnnie, the Johnnie who has achieved good results, because he has never taken the role played by the teacher in his achievements, into account. I want to make a very urgent appeal to our parents today to be careful and judicious when discussing teachers, particularly when the children are present. It is they who are first and foremost in a position to afford status to the teaching profession. Criticism of the work of the teacher belongs in the office of the head of the school, and not at table where the children are present.

The same goes for achievements on the sportsfield. When the achievements are good, they are the child’s achievements, but when they are poorer, then it is the responsibility of the school or the teacher. More and more people are saying that the teacher must be dissociated from extramural activities. It would be an evil day if the teacher, as an educator, no longer had the opportunity to meet his children outside the classroom. This applies to the sportsfield and camps where he is able to perform real work of education. No right-thinking and inspired teacher would want to give that up. There are two factors in particular which are giving rise to a growing antagonism with regard to extramural activities. In the first place it is due to a lack of sufficient men in education. This has resulted in the available male staff being overloaded with extramural activities. As a result he has to neglect almost all his activities or only attend to them in a haphazard fashion. Contact with pupils outside the classroom then becomes a burden for him, and the element of education outside the classroom is lost.

A second aspect responsible for the building up of antagonism towards extramural activities is the recent craze that has developed at certain schools, viz. so-called specialization in regard to sporting activities in particular. An athletic meeting or rugby league match has to be won at all costs. Specialization has become the watchword. If a school is going to specialize in athletics time is spent on coaching, month in and month out, day in and day out, almost day and night. If a headmaster should decide that certain athletic achievements would publicize the name of his school, then parents are dragged in, prestige meetings are presented and the teacher is the one who has to bend over backwards and ensure that the children are given the necessary coaching.

They become stale from too much coaching and are driven to provide the children with the necessary specialized coaching. At these schools “win” has become the watchword. As a result, the teacher, instead of enjoying athletics with the pupils and doing educational work, is steamrollered into producing achievements and yet more achievements. I want to voice my wholehearted agreement with the statement by Mr. H. C. Botha, chairman of the Federal Council, to the effect that the teacher does not mind working hard and working long hours, as long as he knows that what he is doing is professional work. To this I want to add “and as long as it is also of an educational nature”. I therefore take it amiss of the PRP for having disparaged teachers, through one of their floor-crossing colleagues in the Transvaal Provincial Council, the member for Edenvale, when he said the following in the provincial council at the beginning of the year (Vol. 160, p. 159)—

I take it amiss of him that he disparages teachers in this way, because it is not true. I place a far higher premium on today’s teachers than does the hon. member for Durban Central. We should just ensure that the teacher of today, like the teacher of the past, should be eager to carry out the task of training and educating the child. Circumstances outside the teacher’s control to which I have already referred have, however, caused the task to become an almost impossible one, measured in terms of the available manpower. The legislation before us is the first tangible step to have education legally recognized as a profession. It brings education into line with other professions, for example the Medical Council. The primary aim is to allow education as a profession to take its place as an equal alongside the other professions and to assign to education its true value as an essential function. Consequently it is only right that the teacher should be obliged to register with the Teachers’ Council. The teacher will therefore stand before the class as a full-fledged professional person, bound to a certain code of conduct.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Virginia said, and appeal to teachers not to withdraw from the teachers’ associations in view of the compulsory registration with the Teachers’ Council. It would be an evil day if teachers were to follow the new and abandon the old. To retain a say in the Teachers’ Council, viz. the right to participate in the election of the members of the council, a teacher has to be a member of a teachers’ association. They must not deny themselves this right but must remain members of their various teachers’ associations.

It is with a sense of deep gratitude to the teaching profession that I wholeheartedly support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for Gezina, made a sound and important speech this afternoon. I can associate myself wholeheartedly with what he said and consequently I want to congratulate him on his speech. To the figure mentioned by the hon. member in regard to the resignation of men from education in the Transvaal, I may add that the number of resignations rose from 125 in 1971 to 433 in 1975. This fact undoubtedly forces one to the realization that it is essential that a penetrating investigation of education and the teaching of our children in the Republic of South Africa be carried out, as the NP Government is doing.

By way of background I should like to say that it is accepted as axiomatic that “the training and the instruction of the young for the business of life, is one of the most ancient concerns of mankind”. When we look up this subject in history books, we find that among the ancient Israelites, education was characterized by a strong national pride which arose out of the knowledge that their God was the only true God, and this resulted in the demand for the education of every chosen child. The highest imaginable demands were set for teachers. They were carefully selected and well trained. If we look at an earlier period, we find the following words—

In Pericles’s Conception of the State one reads—

If we take a look at the Greeks, we see—

The author who asks the question, states that the Hellenes’ secret of success was to be found in the special attention they gave to the education of their children. I want to mention a further fact. If, in the circumstances of this period of our history in which South Africa finds itself at present, one considers what has happened in other countries over the centuries, we find it striking that throughout history, when there have been periods of major reform, periods of major decisions which had to be taken, boom conditions in education played a decisive role in the decisive years in the life of each of those nations. That is why it is so essential that we must ensure, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at present, that all is well with the education of our children and education in our country.

Sir, I do not want to digress too much at this point, but looking at the position in Russia, we find that for them, education is the most important instrument with which to achieve national aims. They therefore see to it that the necessary financial means are made available to that instrument with which they achieve their aims. Closer home, looking at the position against the background of the necessity for all to be well as regards the education of our children and for any faults there may be to be rectified, I say that there is one thing we must not fail to bear in mind, and that is that in the midst of the constant renewal which must take place in education, stability must be maintained. I have said that there must be constant renewal in education. We are jointly striving to achieve this very aim by way of all the bodies involved in education, because strength is only to be found in co-operation, there should be no doubt on that score. The world is experiencing a rapid increase in knowledge, and this applies to the Republic of South Africa, too, and that rapid increase in itself causes a lack of stability which leads to a lack of confidence. It would be an evil day for the Republic of South Africa—bearing in mind that renewal in education must take place—if we were not to succeed in bringing about and ensuring stability as well.

Looking at this Bill, it is encouraging to see that after so many years it has in fact been possible to progress up to this point.

†I think we are all agreed on one thing, and that is that this Bill is by no means perfect, but that it is a welcome measure which is certainly necessary.

*Hon. members opposite have tried to maintain that it is a simple matter to come to the House of Assembly with this legislation. Sir, that is far from being the case. It is not such a simple matter, and it is for that very reason that it has taken so long to bring it here. Why is this so? It is so because interest organizations in education, such as the Federal Council of Teachers’ Association and the Committee of Heads of Education, have been built up over more than 100 years. Over the years, legal authority has been vested in the National Education Council. No sensible person could simply wipe off the map what has been built up over more than a century, and put something half-baked in its place. It therefore after a very difficult process that this legislation has been brought to this House. It had to be drafted in co-operation with all these interested organizations in education. If we had not been able to succeed in obtaining the co-operation of all these organizations, such as the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations—which consists of teachers and has also been established by those people— and also the Committee of Heads of Education, then surely we should surely have been unable to bring about progress and renewal in education. We should then simply have brought about chaos in education, and I should like to see the political party which could avoid that then.

The principle of continuity has also to be taken into account.

Yes. As the hon. member says, the principle of continuity had to be taken into account. What is actually very encouraging is that the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, the Committee of Heads of Education and my department and I all reached agreement on the Bill at present before the House. This is an extremely important point and must not be lost sight of.

Various hon. members inter alia, the hon. members for Durban Central, Berea, Yeoville and Pietermaritzburg North, have said that this Bill does not vest sufficient powers in this Teachers’ Council. Sir, I could have agreed with the hon. members. The hon. member for Algoa, too, said that he would have liked to see the Teachers’ Council being given more extensive powers. Let us take a sober look at this matter for a moment. Hon. members must listen now, because if they understand what I say now, then it will assist us a great deal when we come to the amendments in the Committee Stage. I should very much like to accept as many of the amendments as I possibly can. I shall also try to do so. But there must be no mistake about certain things. If hon. members tell me that we must give this new council all the powers for which the hon. members are asking, and which we too would have liked to give this council, but in the process we flout the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations and cause difficulty with them or flout the Committee of Heads of Education and cause difficulty with them, then surely that would not be the sober and correct method of approach. We have the full cooperation of the Committee of Heads of Education and the Federal Council with regard to the Bill and we are very, very grateful for that. We are here engaged in a process of renewal, of evolution, of development in so far as this filters through to education. That is why I have not the slightest doubt that when the Bill becomes law and the council has been established, these three bodies, viz. the new teachers’ council, the Committee of Heads of Education and the Federal Council, will convene—I shall assist them to do so—and, with the necessary insight, determine jointly what additional powers and functions are to be entrusted to the Teachers’ Council. The council will therefore grow in status, achieve a position and will, in fact, be in a position to comply with the high expectations which are cherished for it. It will then be able to succeed in making the teaching profession more attractive and in inspiring respect for the teaching profession among the public. It will also be able to succeed in emphasizing this event, namely that this is the first time a statutory body is being established for the teachers, one with the necessary capacity and powers which are a natural outcome of the circumstances of our country, and have not been imposed from above with malice and unpleasantness.

Most hon. members raised certain points to which I should like to reply further. I want to point out that in 1969 and even later—one can consult Hansard—there were debates in this House, not about a teachers’ council, but about a registration council for teachers. That was the furthest we had allowed ourselves to think at that stage. At that time hon. members opposite asked for a registration council for teachers. That registration council—hon. members can consult Hansard—would have had such limited functions that the approach was that it would not be worthwhile to bring into being a statutory body of this kind. That was one of the reasons why this matter was delayed for so many years and why it was not attended to sooner. Hon. members must not, therefore, underestimate the importance of concluding the necessary agreement with the other bodies and with the Administrators of the four provinces. Up to the present—and hon. members must take this into account when they move their amendments—such good progress has been made that we have now been able to establish a Teachers’ Council—not a registration council for teachers, but a council with important functions and powers. I repeat that perhaps they are not the best powers we could give the council—that is still to come—but nevertheless important powers and functions. A start has therefore been made with this process of evolution, and this process will be continued. I ask hon. members opposite not to want to cause this fruit to ripen prematurely. Give it a chance. If we do so we shall really make rapid and good progress. I know what I am talking about when I say this.

Now I want to point out something which the hon. members have apparently not perceived, and it seems to me that each of the Opposition speakers has fallen into this trap. To be specific, there is a big difference between a council and an association. The Teachers’ Council is the body which is concerned with the training and the ethical conduct of the teacher, viz. with the professional status of the teacher. Comparisons have been drawn here, and I do not mind comparisons being drawn just as long as an effort is not made, as some hon. members have tried to do, to disparage the Teachers’ Council in advance. I do not think that is fair. The Medical Council, too, has similar functions with regard to the people in the medical profession. On the other hand, the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, just like the Medical Association, is concerned with the conditions of service, salaries and associated interests of the teaching group. In my opinion hon. members have therefore made a mistake by drawing comparisons which do not hold water. They must compare the Medical Association with the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations and the Medical Council with this Teachers’ Council. The first two are concerned with the status of the various professions and the latter two with questions of salary, conditions of service and related matters.

Agreement has been reached with the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations in regard to the legislation as it reads at present. It is therefore a measure that has been agreed on. Consequently I cannot simply go ahead and make a large number of fundamental changes to this legislation without referring back to the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations and the Committee of Heads of Education to ask them whether they agree with the amendments. There will be amendments in any event, because we want to give the Teachers’ Council more powers. However, we cannot do so unilaterally, viz. without consulting the other bodies as well.

The third point raised here is the issue of teacher training. Section 1 of the National Education Policy Act of 1967 defines teacher training as a function of the Committee of Heads of Education. Hon. members fail entirely to take this into account. The Act states that the Committee of Heads of Education has that function. Consequently I cannot accept amendments here or adopt an attitude ignoring this and adopting a new course without that Act being amended. Thus far the Committee of Heads of Education has controlled and co-ordinated training and this function cannot, therefore, suddenly be taken away from it without further ado, and vested in another body. Clause 18(d) was formulated as it reads at present after negotiation. When the Teachers’ Council has been established, further consultation may take place. I can give the hon. members the assurance now that further consultation will in fact take place in order to give the Teachers’ Council greater responsibility and powers in regard to training, if it is possible to come to an agreement on that score.

Next I want to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville and other hon. members who raised certain points with regard to greater powers for the Teachers’ Council. I shall bring to the attention of that council, the Committee of Heads of Education and the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, all the points raised by this side of the House and by that side of the House in the course of this debate relating to greater powers for the Teachers’ Council. I shall bring it to their attention so that they, and we, may consider how to vest greater powers in this council as soon as possible. I agree that if this council has the right powers as a statutory body, its future will be assured.

We must also bear in mind that amendments to the Education Act of 1967 which, in my opinion, there will certainly be, will have to be carefully considered. Just recently, I conducted negotiations with regard to where teachers are to be trained, for example. Amendments to this legislation at this stage will seriously delay that process, which is of the utmost importance as regards allowing the teaching profession to take its rightful place in the administration of our country. This can only be to the detriment of teacher training.

There is a fourth point which virtually all hon. members opposite have raised. I refer to the issue of the protection of the interests of the teacher. The most important interests of the teacher lie in security of employment, and protection of this is largely the responsibility of the Federal Council. We must not fail to bear this in mind. If the employer were to take action against the teacher as a result of unethical conduct, viz. infringement of the code, this would not restrict the Council from intervening in the interests of the teacher, because that would be exceeding the functions of the council.

It has also been argued that the code of conduct must be drafted by the council only and without the approval of the Committee of Heads of Education. Clause 15(1)(d) reads—

The Teachers’ Council therefore takes the initiative in drafting it. It is therefore unnecessary for hon. members to condemn the fact. Since a dividing line has to be found in the functions of the employer and those of the council, it is of cardinal importance that an agreement or concurrence be reached; if not, it will be to the detriment of the Teachers’ Council, as sure as we are sitting here. It was necessary for me to negotiate with the Administrators with regard to the Bill. The hon. members are apparently unaware that the South Africa Act of 1910 entrusted the whole issue of education to the provinces. In view of this, surely I cannot introduce a Bill such as this in the House without having consulted the Administrators on the matter. When I negotiated with the Administrators, it came to light that certain Administrators-in-Executive-Committee even felt that the code should be agreed to at Administrator level. Therefore the question may well be asked whether the provincial councils should not be consulted, since ordinances have to be accepted by those councils. The code of conduct could very easily affect the ordinances. This matter is therefore not nearly as simple as hon. members in those benches seem to think.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred to the issue of the registration of teachers or persons employed by private schools and the hon. member for Yeoville, too, made mention of this. I want to point out to hon. members that there are two kinds of private schools, viz. the State-supported private schools and private schools without any financial support from the State. The State-supported private schools are included in the definition of “school” and the provisions of the Bill therefore apply to the teachers at such schools. Since entirely private schools are in many cases jealous of their independence— hon. members themselves know to what extent they are jealous of it—their teaching staff is not obliged to register. They are not forced to register. However there is nothing in the legislation which prohibits voluntary registration. Nothing prevents the teachers of schools which do not receive a subsidy from registering; they can do so of their own free will. The Bill does not place a restriction on who or what the council may register. It merely provides who has to register in order to be appointed to a full-time permanent post in the employ of the central Government or the provincial administrations. I hope the position is now very clear to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. Registration means that the person registered is qualified to be appointed to a full-time permanent capacity. Although registration does not bind the State to appoint a person on a permanent basis, there could be a clash between the employer and the council if the council were to register people in a manner not consistent with the provisions of the legislation. It has always been the intention to eliminate such cases by way of negotiation. I hope the position is clear to the hon. member.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised certain points to which I should like to reply. He said that the council should lay down a certain code of conduct. I say that the Bill very clearly makes provision for this in clause 15(1)(d), but for reasons I have already explained, this must be done in co-operation with the Committee of Heads of Education. The council must have a say with regard to the qualifications of the profession and it must also have a say with regard to the type of training, as the hon. member stated. I say to the hon. member that clause 18(d) provides for this since the council may furnish advice or make recommendations. At this stage the approval of qualifications is another function of the Committee of Heads of Education and the Minister determines the policy with regard to teacher training. However, as soon as the Teachers’ Council has been set up, attention can be given to greater powers for the council and the resultant amendment of clause 1. For the reasons I have already explained, it will be a case of putting the cart before the horse if we were to consider amending the Bill at this stage with a view to vesting greater powers in the council. We must afford the council the opportunity to function and conduct the necessary discussions with interested bodies such as the Federal Council and the Committee of Heads of Education. I therefore want to tell the hon. member that certain disciplinary powers relating to the profession, and the vital code of conduct in particular, will undoubtedly be vested in this Teachers’ Council. The hon. member also asked that the council should have a say in respect of levels of income. Let me again say to the hon. member—if we understand each other now, we shall not need to make long speeches about it in the Committee Stage— that the fact of the matter is that this is not a function of the Medical Council, or the Nursing Council either. The issue of the income of teachers must be left to the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, just as similar matters are the task of the Medical Association and the Nursing Association and not of the Medical Council and the Nursing Council. Hon. members must please bear this distinction in mind because it is clear from some of the arguments that they have failed to do so. In this regard we cannot get past the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, because it is their task to negotiate for salary structures, salary conditions, conditions of service and so on. Surely we cannot have two bodies in education with similar functions, because this would cause clashes. I hope this is clear to the hon. members.

The hon. member went on to argue that the teachers’ council would have to take an active part in furthering the profession. I can tell the hon. member that that aim is included in the objects of the council as set out in clause 3. The council will play an active part with regard to the most important aspect of the profession, an aspect which has been extremely widely stated, viz. to promote the status of the teacher in South Africa. The Teachers’ Council therefore has a tremendous opportunity to concern itself directly with the profession.

The hon. member also referred specifically to clauses 16 and 20. Let me tell the hon. member at once that these two clauses do not clash with each other in any way. Clause 16 provides that the Committee of Heads of Education first has to designate a post before there can be a permanent appointment of someone who does not possess a professional qualification. Clause 20, on the other hand, places a restriction on teaching, but it does not relate to provisional registration. The problems which the hon. member apparently foresees are not serious ones and will be solved by the various heads of education. For example, anyone could start by being appointed on a temporary basis and then, after provisional registration, could be appointed on a permanent basis. This could be retrospective. In cases which are not urgent, the person could first be asked to register provisionally. Therefore those two clauses do not clash in any way as far as this matter is concerned.

I think I have now replied to all the general points raised. There is only one more to which I want to refer. Hon. members of both Opposition parties objected to the fact that this council had been established for Whites only. In point of fact, this matter amounts to a difference in policy. All I can say to hon. members is that we foresee that similar councils will be established for other population groups in South Africa. In clause 18(g) I saw to it that the necessary provision was made for the education council for Whites to co-operate with other councils or institutions in an umbrella or co-ordinating council in which members of the other population groups could serve. Hon. members opposite asked whether it would not have a harmful effect on the teaching profession if the Teachers’ Council were to be for Whites only.

The hon. member for Virginia, and other hon. members on this side, too, advanced outstanding arguments to indicate that in fact it would be to the detriment of the profession to ripen the fruit prematurely in this respect while the qualifications of the various population groups were still far from comparable. This would result in one acting as a brake on the other. That is why the correct approach is to establish a Teachers’ Council for Whites and to provide that similar councils may be established for other population groups, after which an umbrella or co-ordinating council could be established if there was a need for it. It is therefore very sensible of us at this early stage to make provision in law, in clause 18(g), for effecting co-operation in the event of such a situation arising. I therefore want to express the hope that this legislation will be an important milestone in the process whereby the teaching profession in South Africa is accorded its rightful place, and in the process by which the teacher is accorded the necessary status in our society, because it is of the utmost importance that the teacher should play that decisive role in our community. I want to conclude with a quotation—

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are not satisfied with the amendment which the hon. the Minister moved in the Other Place in regard to clause 7. I therefore now formally move the amendment to this clause which stands in my name on page 392 of the Order Paper—

1. (5) Any inspector referred to in subsection (1) shall, before he exercises or performs any power or function under this Act, produce and exhibit to any person affected thereby, the inspection authority referred to in subsection (1).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind this hon. House that, when this clause was discussed in the Committee Stage in this House, we moved an amendment to the effect that, when an inspector undertook an inspection in terms of this legislation, he should be required to produce his authority for making that inspection before actually undertaking such an inspection. We had very good reasons for moving that amendment. The inspectors, in terms of this legislation, will carry power to inspect very confidential information and records of people in business. In our opinion it is vitally necessary that those people in business should be adequately protected against imposters, that they should be adequately protected against industrial sabotage and industrial espionage, which do go on on quite a large scale.

In addition to that, we consider that if one is going to establish a good working relationship between an inspector, in terms of this legislation, and the person inspected, one must remove any cause for suspicion between those parties right at the start before the inspection is being undertaken. For that reason the inspector should produce his authority before inspecting and not put the person inspected in the invidious position of having to force a person coming to inspect him, to identify himself. I believe those were very valid reasons for us moving that amendment during the Committee Stage in the original place. I might say that this is nothing new to this House and it is nothing new as far as amendments from this side are concerned. Similar amendments have been moved to other legislation and have been accepted by the Government, I would think, in more cases than they have not been accepted. We have certainly accepted it in the Hazardous Substances Act, the Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act and, during this session, in the Plant Improvement Act When I moved this amendment during the Committee Stage, the hon. the Minister refused to accept it for what he described as practical difficulties in the way of carrying out this legislation if such amendment were embodied in it. But in refusing to accept the amendment he gave me two undertakings. The first was that he would consider an amendment in the Other Place to provide that inspectors be required to identify themselves, and secondly, that he would submit such an amendment to me before taking it to the Other Place. I should like to remind this House of the actual discussion that took place in the Committee Stage. In col. 3845 the hon. the Minister said—

Then in col. 3854, on the undertaking of the hon. the Minister that he would not only show me the amendment before taking it to the Other Place but also that he would introduce it in the Other Place, I withdrew my amendment with these words—

Well, it is a matter of regret to me, Sir, that the hon. the Minister did not show me this amendment before he introduced it in the Other Place although I was freely available for at least a full week before the discussion took place there. As far as the amendment which was accepted in the Other Place is concerned, this certainly does not satisfy the requirements of the situation. In fact, as I see it, the amendment which is now in front of us really serves no good purpose at all. It does not in any practical sense provide the owner of a business who is going to be inspected, with any rights that he does not already possess. If any person comes into my business and asks to inspect it and to exercise any of the powers which are given in this legislation, such as inspecting goods, books or other documents and seizing and retaining goods, books and other documents, I already have the right to ask him either to identify himself or to leave the premises. We do not need this clause to give the person to be inspected that right. The Minister may say that he wants this clause so that the inspectors may go into premises such as shops and wander around and see what is happening and observe things like advertisements, prices, etc., without identifying themselves. I cannot see, if the amendment which I have just moved were to be accepted, how inspectors will be prevented from doing that.

The public has the right to enter shops, to wander around and to see what is happening, and inspectors will have exactly the same right. I maintain, however, that this is not what the inspectors will be required to do in practice. What the inspectors will be required to do in practice, will be to deal with specific complaints against undesirable trade practices, complaints that have been made by members of the public. To investigate such complaints, they will have to exercise the powers that they are given in terms of clause 7. In other words, they will have to enter the premises, undertake a proper inspection and see the books, records, etc. If they are to do that, the parties that are to be inspected already have the right to require the identification that is provided for in the amendment that was accepted in the Other Place. What the person to be inspected needs, is protection against imposters and against industrial espionage. I maintain that the amendment which I have now moved—which was rejected earlier by this House in the Committee Stage of the Bill—is the amendment which is required to provide the protection which is very badly needed in terms of this legislation. I believe that if the hon. the Minister would accept the amendment I have moved, he would greatly improve this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to endorse everything the hon. member for Constantia has said this afternoon. I wish to refer to the Senate Hansard of this debate, but before I do so I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that when the hon. member for Constantia quoted from Hansard of this House, the date was 24 March 1976, while the Hansard I am going to quote from now covers the Committee Stage of the Trade Practices Bill of 4 May 1976. It is quite a long time and the hon. the Minister—regretfully I believe— did not honour his undertaking.

I explained that during the Committee Stage.

I still believe it is regretful that the hon. the Minister did not do it, because I believe that when he moved this amendment in the Other Place, he moved it as follows (Senate Debates No. 8, col. 1927)—

The hon. the Minister said the following when he explained the purpose of the amendment which he moved in the Other Place (Senate Debates No. 8, col. 1927)—

As I understood it, it was a fundamental aspect of the undertaking that the hon. the Minister would consult with the hon. member for Constantia. I find it regrettable that it did not take place. I do not wish to repeat the very lucid argument and the convincing reasoning the hon. member for Constantia has put forward, but I want to suggest that we seek to introduce a positive approach as against a negative approach. I believe the hon. the Minister still has an opportunity to reconsider his decision and his attitude in this regard. The hon. member for Constantia has referred to other legislation which incorporates the principle which we stand for in this particular type of clause. It is not new as far as the Ministers of Health, Agriculture and others are concerned, because they have accepted it. I ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment, because if he does not I have to conclude certain things. In the first instance, I will be forced to conclude that the hon. the Minister approves of the concept that the individual exists for the State and not the State for the individual and, furthermore, that he is of the opinion that the convenience of inspectors transcends the importance of the individual in so far as this particular Bill is concerned, because he is not prepared to protect the public against the possibilities which my hon. colleague has disclosed so convincingly. I also believe that we have to conclude that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to place inspectors above any form of suspicion in their identity in the powers they have under this legislation. These, I believe, are cogent and serious reasons why the hon. the Minister should accept our amendment. Even at this late stage I want to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. We shall support the hon. member for Constantia in his amendment. On the other hand, we must be quite clear that we do not think the difference between the amendment introduced by the hon. the Minister and the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Constantia is earth-shaking. However, on balance, it is clearly better that inspectors should have to show their inspection authority before taking the steps as described in the legislation rather than be requested to do so. To be quite honest, we would have thought that if somebody were worried about the question of industrial espionage and sabotage, they could certainly ask the inspector to produce his authority. However, on balance we cannot see what problems it may cause an inspector to produce it rather than to be requested to do so. We shall, therefore, support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia.

Mr. Speaker, I find the statement just made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North a little incomprehensive. During the Committee Stage of the Plant Improvement Bill, the hon. member for Bryanston supported the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia. His words were—

The hon. member ended up by saying—

I want to support those speakers who said that they would support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia this afternoon. On the other hand, I really cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is holding on to the last little bit of the concession he has made. Why must the person who is being investigated demand of the person who is doing the investigation the authority to do such an investigation? I am sure that hon. members are aware of the circumstances in this country at present. Not all traders are White people; many of them are non-White. They are used to having inspectors in their places of business all the time. However, they are either used to those inspectors who produce their authority as soon as they enter the places of business, or else those who are in uniform. Post Office inspectors wear uniforms. Members of the Police either wear uniforms or, in the case of plain-clothes policemen, produce their authority. It is something which is done as a matter of course. However, immediately the hon. the Minister introduces into this Bill the provision that an inspector shall only produce his authority at the request of the person affected by such exercise, immediately the hon. the Minister tells inspectors not to produce their authority unless they are asked to do so, one is going to lose the confidence of the people. I want to return for a moment to the question of the non-White traders I was talking about. These people are afraid of authority and are particularly afraid of the victimization which can result from the questioning of the authority of a person who is investigating any matters in their store. I do not believe that this House should today put those traders in the position where they can be victimized simply because they have to demand of a person his authority to carry out an investigation. What has an inspector got to hide? I do not believe that he has anything at all to hide. I believe that he should quite openly go there and say: “I am Joe Soap and I am authorized by the Secretary to do this job. Here is my authority. Will you please produce your books.”

Such a requirement does not mean that that inspector will be hampered in his work at all. I believe that that inspector can still do all the necessary investigation. If an inspector walks into a shop just to look around, I do not believe that it is necessary for the inspector, immediately he crosses the threshold of that shop, to produce his authority, and it is not the intention of the hon. member for Constantia’s amendment that he should do so. However, immediately that inspector goes to the licensee and says, “I want your books”, or “I want to see that and you must produce it”, he must produce his authority. This is the whole point behind which the hon. the Minister has hidden both in the debates here and in the debates in the Other Place. He reads the amendment of the hon. member for Constantia as saying: “When the inspector sets foot across the threshold he shall produce his authority’ ’. That is not what is written into the amendment. It is when the inspector takes action that he should produce his authority. The amendment reads as follows: “Any inspector, before he exercises or performs any power …”. It is not merely when he goes into a shop to investigate that he should produce his authority, but when he goes to a trader and says, “T want your books”, or “I want to look at those goods.” That is when he must produce his authority. I believe that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia is a reasonable one and one which can only lead to the more effective carrying out of the intentions of this House when it passed the Bill. It is an amendment which can only lead to better co-operation between the hon. the Minister’s department, through is inspectors, and the persons who are affected by this Bill. I would urge the hon. the Minister, in the name of justice and in the name of reasonableness to accept this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by conveying my apologies to the hon. member for Constantia for the misunderstanding which occurred in regard to this amendment. I do not want to take the matter further at this stage, and I shall therefore let that suffice. Let us consider the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia. He is quite right; it is the identical amendment he moved at the Committee Stage. The hon. member concedes that I had fundamental difficulties in accepting that amendment at that stage, for the reasons I gave him at that stage. I undertook to introduce an amendment in the Other Place which would comply with the requirements he set. I did not undertake to introduce the amendment he proposed then in the Other Place, because I was unable to accept that amendment. However, as I have just said, I undertook to try to introduce an amendment which would comply with the requirements he set. It is clear that no amount of discussion is going to help us, because my amendment is not acceptable to him. The amendment which is acceptable to him is the one he originally proposed.

Sir, let us now, in all fairness, take a look at the legislation itself. In terms of clause 5, the powers of the Secretary are transferred to the Inspector. When we look at the objects of the legislation we find that we are dealing with malpractices or undesirable trade practices. This is what the legislation seeks to prevent. In order to do this, the legislation contains certain enabling provisions and certain powers which are vested in the Secretary and which the Secretary, in turn, may delegate to the inspectors. The Secretary cannot delegate his powers in terms of clause 6 to an inspector, but only those in terms of clause 5. In other words, there is already a restriction with regard to the delegation of powers, and therefore this also applies to the powers an inspector may exercise under delegation.

What does the hon. member for Constantia want to prevent? In the first instance he wants to prevent industrial sabotage from taking place. I agree with him; one must try to prevent this if one can. He wants to prevent “that people can be imposters, posing as inspectors”. I agree with him on that score too. He wants there to be a sound attitude between the inspectors and the people who undergo inspections. I agree with him on that score as well. In all fairness, if it is expressly provided in the legislation that apart from the common law—which in any event affords anyone who is inspected, the right to ask for this—the inspector has to exhibit his authority on demand, and it is being inserted here merely to reconfirm that people subject to inspections have the right to ask the man for his authority. Many of the things which may be subject to inspection could be totally frustrated if the inspector were to walk in and effect the identification at once. Now we must consider the arguments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and we must also consider the amendment on the Order Paper, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia. I quote—

That power is a power of inspection, not necessarily the seizing of books, but the power of inspection. The inspector goes to a specific shop, and does so after we have acquired specific information that specific practices occur in the sale of certain goods. He walks in and makes a test purchase. It is no use the hon. member shaking his head. The inspector is then performing an action under the Act. When the inspector goes in there to make a test purchase, to go and identify a specific practice, then, in terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Constantia, he is exercising a power under the Act. If I accept the amendment as printed, the inspector has to go in there and say: “Here is my letter of appointment. I now want to make a test purchase from you. ’ ’

May I ask the hon. the Minister if there is no difference between powers and activities on the one hand and investigation on the other?

One of the powers of an inspector is that he must go and inspect whether a specific practice occurs or does not occur at a specific shop. When I say that it is a power, and I then say that before he exercises his power, he has to identify himself, I cannot argue that it is not the same action. I must now honestly say that hon. members are aware that what I have in mind, and what they have in mind, are the one and same thing. It is just that we find it so terribly difficult to satisfy everyone with regard to the wording. Let me just say to the hon. member for Berea that I am not elevating the State above the individual. I wonder whether he realizes that this legislation is specifically aimed at protecting individual rights, rights which are exploited by a few people. It is not the rights of the State which are at issue here; it is often ordinary, uneducated people whose rights are at issue. The State therefore has to act as guardian. It is pointless hon. members telling me that they support me with regard to the principle and then, when I have to create the mechanism to do the work, opposing me in this way. Surely that is not fair.

Let me make a suggestion to hon. members. We have difficulties in regard to this legislation. The amendment by the hon. member for Constantia means that inspections may not be carried out before identification. I maintain that the powers I am now vesting in the inspectors may be exercised without prejudice to the rights of the people whose affairs are being investigated. I maintain further that the amendment which I moved in the Other Place and which I ask that hon. members accept, provides that inspectors must always have their means identification on their person, because when an inspector enters a place, anyone may ask for it, and if he does not have the identification with him, he cannot continue with his work. He then has to go and fetch it first. In the second place, all the people in the business world, people who know their rights, fear sabotage or industrial sabotage, or people who pretend to be what they are not. No one is going to tell me that businessmen will not have this legislation at their fingertips. That is why I say that I have written enough into the legislation to give people the right to protect themselves, and I undertake to amend the legislation if any hon. member brings it to my attention that this power is not being exercised with the necessary discretion and that it is being abused by my inspectors.

Question put: That the subsection stand part of the amendment,

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—76: Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—39: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pitman, S. A.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, G C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. G. Kingwill.

Question affirmed and amendment moved by Mr. D. D. Baxter dropped.

Amendment agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment in clause 10 agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In recent years a large number of unauthorized copies of foreign cinematograph films have been distributed or hired out by certain persons and organizations in the Republic. Although no copyright compensation was paid to the rightful holders of the copyright in such cinematograph films in respect of the exhibition thereof, such compensation was in fact payable, in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1965, in respect of the exhibition of the said cinematograph films. However, it was not possible to recover the compensation.

In many cases the rightful holders of copyright in the said cinematograph films, as well as the distributors thereof, instituted legal proceedings against the contraveners in terms of the provisions of the Copyright Act in order to recover damages from them and, in many other cases, prosecutions were instituted against them for offences in terms of the Act. Under the existing legal rules, however, it is very difficult to prove the rights of holders of copyright in cinematograph films, as well as the distributors thereof, and furthermore the costs of litigation in such cases are frequently very high, since witnesses have to be brought from abroad to testify in regard to the facts in such a case.

In certain of these cases judgment was passed against the rightful owners and distributors of cinematograph films purely on technicalities, but in other instances the action was prosecuted to the point just prior to the case being heard in the Supreme Court, and then the unlawful distributors of the said cinematograph film agreed, at that late stage, to pay copyright compensation. Instances also occurred where damages, together with the costs of the litigation, were awarded against the unlawful distributors of cinematograph films, but in more instances than one, in both instances to which I referred, the plaintiffs were unable to recover anything from the defendants since the defendants in the cases concerned had no assets which could be attached. There are people who are making a business of the distribution of cinematograph films.

In order to afford the rightful holders of copyright in cinematograph films more effective protection, and to ease the burden of proof in civil as well as criminal cases, it is being proposed in the Bill which is now before this House that provision be made for a system of voluntary registration of the relevant copyright.

I want to proceed to discuss the main provisions which are embodied in the Bill.

In clause 1 of the Bill provision will be made, for the purposes of the proposed legislation, for a number of definitions, all of which are self-explanatory.

In clauses 2 up to and including 5 of the Bill it is being proposed that provision be made for the establishment of an office for the registration of copyright in cinematograph films, and for the appointment, for the purposes of the proposed legislation, of a Registrar of Copyright. According to the proposed legislation an agent will be able to undertake the registration of copyright in a cinematograph film on behalf of any person entitled, but it is expressly provided that no person other than an attorney or patent agent may accept the said commission, or, with a view to gain, furnish advice in relation to such a registration. The procedure which will be adopted with the registration of copyright in a cinematograph film will be prescribed by clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill, and the registrar will be empowered to accept or refuse such an application for registration conditionally or unconditionally. When an application for registration of copyright in a film is refused by the registrar he will have to furnish in writing the reasons for his decision and the applicant will then be able to appeal to the Supreme Court against such a decision. Furthermore it will be required in terms of the proposed legislation that, if any application for registration is accepted conditionally or unconditionally, the acceptance of such application shall be advertised for general information in the manner prescribed by the legislation.

Since it is expected that, under certain circumstances, there may possibly be more than one person who will lay claim to copyright in a specific cinematograph film, provision is being made in clauses 9 up to and including 14 of the Bill for proceedings in accordance with which the registrar may, in a formal or, with the consent of the parties concerned, in an informal manner adjudicate upon any opposition to the registration of copyright in a specific cinematograph film. An appeal to the Supreme Court may be made against the decision of the registrar in formal proceedings in regard to the registration of copyright in a cinematograph film, but not in the case of the decision of the registrar in informal proceedings to which the parties concerned have consented. Provision is also being made in the proposed legislation for security for the costs which either party may incur in regard to opposition proceedings before the Registrar.

Clauses 15, 16 and 17 of the Bill contain provisions relating to the establishment of a register of copyright in cinematograph films and provision will also, inter alia, be made for the effecting of amendments or corrections to entries in the register. In order to place the reliability of any entry in the register beyond any doubt, it will also be provided in the proposed legislation that any person who is aggrieved by any entry which is wrongly omitted from the register or effected therein, may apply to the court or to the Registrar for a rectification in the register.

Copyright in the cinematograph film may be registered after all the formalities to which I have referred have been disposed of. Furthermore, provision is being made in clause 18 of the Bill for the consequences of the registration of copyright in a cinematograph film and for the empowering of the Registrar to issue a certificate of registration in respect of the cinematograph film. Such a certificate will then, in terms of clause 30 of the Bill, be prima facie evidence of the said entry having been made in the register. Because the Copyright Act of 1965 prescribes the extent of copyright in a cinematograph film, it will also, furthermore, be provided in clause 19 of the Bill that the duration of the registration of copyright in a cinematograph film shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of that Act.

In practice it frequently happens that several copies of a specific cinematograph film are being distributed in various parts of the world, and that the distributors of cinematograph films issue licences to persons to exhibit the cinematograph film. Such licences may be granted to various people, or exclusively to one person. Provision is therefore being made in clause 20 of the Bill for the recording—in the register of copyright in cinematograph films—of particulars in respect of the legal relationships among owners of copyright in cinematograph films and the licensees in relation to such cinematograph films, as well as for the conditions or terms on which the licences were granted. Before the Registrar records the particulars in regard to such a licence holder in the register, he has to be satisfied that the licensee as such is recognized by the owner, and is being allowed by the owner to act as licensee. Provision will be made by regulation for the advertisement of the fact that a person has been registered as a licensee in respect of a cinematograph film.

Clauses 21, 22 and 23 of the Bill contain provisions in regard to the assignment and transmission of copyright in cinematograph films. The Registrar has to be satisfied that such an assignment or transmission has been made by the owner of the cinematograph film and that copyright in the film does in fact vest in the person to whom the assignment or transmission has been made. If he is satisfied, he issues a certificate to such effect. Provision is also being made for the recording of the particulars of an assignment or a transmission of copyright in a cinematograph film, pending an application for registration of copyright in that cinematograph film.

Furthermore, it is being provided that, when any person is entitled by an assignment or a transmission, to copyright in a cinematograph film, he has to apply to the Registrar to register that assignment or transmission. If an assignment or transmission has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of the proposed legislation, a document or instrument in respect of such an assignment or transmission shall not be admitted in evidence in any court, unless the court otherwise directs.

†The powers and duties of the registrar under the proposed legislation are set out in clauses 24 to 28 of the Bill. The registrar will be empowered to determine the venue of any proceedings before him, as well as the manner in which he will receive evidence in such proceedings. He may call for the personal appearance of witnesses; he may order the discovery or inspection of documents; he may deal with interlocutory matters and he may order costs against any party in such proceedings. Such costs are to be taxed by the taxing master of a Supreme Court. Generally speaking, the registrar will have the same powers and jurisdiction as a single judge in a civil action before a provincial division of the Supreme Court, and where no regulations are prescribed, he will have to follow the Supreme Court rules of procedure. The registrar will also be empowered to allow the amendment of documents relating to applications and in proceedings before him. In the exercise of these powers, or in the exercise of any other discretionary power, he must give the applicant, or any other party concerned in the proceedings, an opportunity of being heard.

I have already stated that the proposed system of registration of copyright in cinematograph films will afford protection to the owners of copyright in such films, because such registration will ease the provision of proof in civil and criminal proceedings under the Copyright Act. It therefore follows that the provisions of clauses 29 to 32 of the Bill relating to evidence, should be considered to be the most important portion of the Bill.

Clause 29 of the Bill provides that the proposed register shall be prima facie evidence of any matter which may, in accordance with the proposed legislation, be inserted in the register. Hon. members will no doubt agree that it will be difficult for litigants to produce the register in court so as to prove the contents thereof. However, proof of the contents of the register will be facilitated by the provisions of clause 30 of the Bill, which empowers the Registrar to issue a certificate in regard to the contents of the register.

Furthermore, it is provided in clause 31 of the Bill that, in civil and criminal proceedings relating to copyright in cinematograph films, the fact that a person is registered as the owner or licensee of the copyright in any particular cinematograph film, shall be prima facie evidence of the validity of the original registration of that copyright and any subsequent assignment and transmission thereof. It therefore follows that any litigant will be able to furnish evidence as to his title in any cinematograph film by the mere production of a certificate issued in terms of the proposed legislation. However, it has been brought to my attention that there is a difference between the English and the Afrikaans texts of clause 31 of the Bill, and I shall therefore in the Committee Stage move an amendment to that clause in order to rectify the omission of the reference to licensee in the Afrikaans text. Provision is also made for a certificate of validity to be given by the court where the validity of the registration of copyright in a cinematograph film is in issue and a decision is given in favour of the owner of the copyright.

Appeals to, and the powers of the court, are dealt with in clauses 33 to 39 of the Bill. Except in the case of informal proceedings before the registrar, every other decision of the registrar will be subject to appeal to the division of the Supreme Court within whose area of jurisdiction the decision was given, and thereafter to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court. It is also provided that the parties to an appeal may appeal direct to the Appellate Division without first having appealed to a provincial division.

Apart from the powers of the court to vary or reverse a decision of the registrar, the court may substitute its own decision for the decision of the registrar, or it may remit the case to the registrar for the taking of further evidence, or it may itself call for further proof in the matter before it. Provision is also made for the registrar to be notified of a pending appeal, and for him to be a party to the appeal.

Clauses 40 and 41 of the Bill relate to offences. Penalties are prescribed for the making of false entries in the register and for making false statements for the purpose of deceiving or influencing the registrar with a view to obtaining such false entries to be made.

Miscellaneous matters are dealt with in clauses 42 to 46 of the Bill. Provision is made for the Minister to prescribe regulations, forms and fees, and for the prepayment of such fees before the Registrar performs an act or issues a document. It is also anticipated that many applicants will be resident outside of the Republic, and it is provided, therefore, that such applicants, or if an application is opposed, a non-resident opponent should have an address for service in the Republic where process can be served in all matters pertaining to copyright in cinematograph films. Provision is also made for acts to be done on behalf of any person under some form of disability which prevents him from acting of his own accord. And, finally, it is provided that the legislation will come into operation on a date to be determined by the State President.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House accepts the Bill. However, we do so with a certain amount of misgiving. The first thought I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is that one would have thought, after studying the Bill very carefully, that it could possibly have established the purpose of this legislation by appointing a Registrar of Copyright under the present Act. In that sense it would have enabled the whole of the question of copyright and registration to be contained in what is a very admirable piece of legislation on the Statute Book. I must say that this question was also discussed at one time in a Select Committee, I think, in 1964. On the other hand, one can well understand the problems facing the hon. the Minister in regard to the question of costs and the litigation that has ensued in both the civil and criminal courts. I would like to say that one of the problems facing us in regard to this Bill is the question of additional expenditure, which could possibly be quite heavy. When this matter was raised with one of the witnesses who gave evidence in the Select Committee at the time, it was pointed out that the system of registration was in existence in the United States. The witness said the following—

For that reason the matter was left in abeyance at the time. The only problem that worries one, is the proliferation of additional departments, additional civil servants and additional structure in the total system of the administration for this particular legislation.

Something else which worries us very much indeed, is the fact—I was given this on authority—that this Bill was not submitted to any of the bodies that might have been very relevant indeed in giving some form of advice to the hon. the Minister. I believe that there is a standing committee on copyright to which the representatives were invited by the Registrar of Patents, Designs and Trademarks. The committee consists of representatives from the Institute of Patent Agents, the Bar Council, the recording industry, the film industry, the SABC and SAMRO. These are all very important bodies and vitally interested in the whole question of copyright. This committee was not advised of the details of the proposed Bill, and I believe it only received details of this Bill during March of this year. From information which I have at my disposal, it would appear that the committee is not very happy with the fact that the Bill may become an Act of Parliament without its having had an opportunity to consider the Bill in detail and by all these interested parties. It follows, naturally, that there was also no publication of the Bill in the Government Gazette before submitting it to Parliament, otherwise they might have been aware of it and they might have made some comment on it.

Another feature of the Bill which leaves us unhappy—I do not know how the hon. the Minister can cure it, unless he does so either in the Other Place or after some further consideration—is that the registrar who, according to this particular Bill, is going to be appointed the Registrar of Copyright, will have the powers of a quasi judicial officer. He is going to be invested with powers of jurisdiction possessed by a judge. There can, of course, be an appeal to the Supreme Court. In the Patents Act, the registrar merely carries out the administrative side of his duties. His decisions on the technical issues are then the subject of an appeal to the Commissioner of Patents who is a judge appointed by the Judge-President of the Transvaal Provincial Division. The appeal then goes to him and his particular decision can be taken on appeal to the Supreme Court. Likewise, in the Copyright Act, the question of dispute in respect of licensees, the holders of copyright, or any infringements, can be dealt with by a judicial tribunal consisting similarly, of a single judge who is, in fact, the Commissioner of Patents. His decision is subject to review by a full bench of the Supreme Court. Therefore, to me this seems to be an innovation namely to invest him not only with administrative duties as the registrar of the department, but also with these quasi judicial duties with the right to award costs for which provision is made for taxation by the Registrar of the Supreme Court.

We do not find these features very attractive and we feel that possibly these could have been more clearly dealt with, if the experts had had an opportunity to investigate the Bill and to make their representations to the department. It is obvious that the object of this Bill—for that reason we have to support it—is to protect film organizations in this country, particularly the big companies who import and provide the main exhibitions of films in the Republic, and who are concerned with their involvement in costs regarding copyright. They have had difficulty with pirates in the use of their various films. One need only refer to events over the last 12 months. Particularly last year there has been quite an onslaught of home movie organizations who saturated the market. There were serious problems in regard to copyright. The problem arises when copyright is vested in foreign companies and ownership has to be proved. The hon. the Minister said witnesses have to be produced and that affidavits must be obtained from far-away countries. Considerable expense can thus be involved.

I understand further that the industry in this country has tried to persuade State departments to take criminal proceedings in infringements of the Copyright Act. However, the State is itself in the same position as the organizations which distribute films. They, too, must call witnesses from abroad in order to prove the infringement of the Copyright Act. The State and the industries therefore face the same difficulty. One can therefore understand that some method must be sought for alleviating the situation.

There is a very interesting innovation in the Bill, and that is to shift the onus of proof virtually on to the person who infringes …

The defender.

… the defender who is accused of infringing copyright. As far as I can see, the copyright owner now has the advantage of either having a certificate from the registrar or the decision of the court, which in effect is in itself a further certificate. Further action, therefore, may be taken. The copyright owner can as a result of this produce the necessary evidence by certificates without having to go to the trouble he was subjected to previously in obtaining the necessary evidence. One other problem arises, and I think the hon. the Minister should take notice of this. The requirement for registration under the regulations in general have been left to the registrar. There is no clarity as to details that will be required for registration. A very important aspect that arises is whether the film will have to be filed in order to ensure that one has some form of security and that the registrar has some form of evidence of the particular article in respect of which copyright is sought. This could be a costly project. However, if it is not done, considerable disputes can arise as to the material, as I have suggested, which is sought to be protected. From the Bill it appears that the purpose is only the registration of copyright in regard to a cinematograph film, because the actual question of copyright still remains defined and settled by the Copyrights Act itself. The question of the duration of the copyright, for instance, is provided for in the Copyright Act. In the Bill reference is made to the Copyright Act in that respect. As I have said, the Bill makes no provision for the requirements of registration. This is left entirely to the registrar in terms of clause 1. However, I think some thought may be given to that when the department or the structure to administer this measure has been properly set up.

The other aspect I should like to raise is in regard to the question of acceptance or refusal of applications. No clear-cut guide-lines are set. There is no indication as to whether a film should be submitted with an application. If it is not submitted, then the scope of the subject matter to be registered could be vague. I think some thought should be given to that as well.

I should like to refer to the question of opposition. No exact grounds are stated on which applications can be opposed. I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the Trademarks Act where although no grounds for opposition are set out, the requirements for registration are stipulated in detail in other parts of the Act. I feel that in this particular Bill some grounds of opposition should be stated. If this is not done an impossible situation could arise, where an application for registration can be opposed on any grounds at all, even with the object of holding up a situation. Considerable costs can be involved. The objection may be found to be completely invalid and frivolous although there may be some form of penalty provided for in regard to frivolous applications. Nevertheless, Sir, the time, trouble and expense involved both in connection with the courts and the registrar’s office, are things which I think should be avoided.

A further question I should like to raise relates to an earlier point I made in regard to the actual establishment of the registrar’s office. It seems to me that a large number of staff members may have to be employed if we are to expect what we have seen in the last few years in the case of piracy. On the other hand, under normal conditions, I would have imagined that all these activities could have been absorbed by, for instance, the Registrar of Copyright, or even the Registrar of Patents, Trade Marks and Designs, by virtue of the close alliance of the departments concerned. However, if it is found necessary to establish this registrar’s office, I feel that some thought must be given to the question of keeping costs within circumspect limits.

The final point I should like to raise is the question of the advertising which may be required by the registrar prior to the application being made and subsequent to the application being granted. No details are given as to where the advertisements should be placed. It could be in the Government Gazette, but then it should be so stated. It could also be in the Patents Journal …

That can be done by regulation.

Yes, but I just want to mention the possibilities. As I have said, it could also be in the Patents Journal, which I believe is the most appropriate publication for this purpose. It should certainly be included amongst the media for advertisements, because then it would receive the attention not only of local copyright holders, i.e. owners or licensees; it would also enable those from overseas who may be affected in some way not to be taken by surprise as a result of being unaware of what is taking place in a distant country like the Republic. With those few thoughts, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is no doubt that copyright is a property which one is entitled to have protected, and that the law should be of such a nature that property can be protected. I found it somewhat intriguing that the hon. the Minister started his Second Reading speech by referring to the problems which existed in respect of the infringement of copyright, and which had arisen in the last year or so. He drew attention to the difficulty of recovering damages and of recovering royalties, and seemed to motivate this Bill in relation to that. Sir, I thought that I had forgotten to read the Bill correctly, because there must have been something in it to remedy that. I checked again. I had read it correctly, and therefore the whole of that motivation was actually irrelevant to this Bill. There is nothing in this Bill which enables one to recover damages or royalties. The crux of the Bill, as the Minister a little later pointed out, lies in clauses 18 and 31, which relates to the ability to prove.

That is right.

That is really the concept behind this. The real problem which exists in respect of damages and things of that sort we have not touched on at all, and here the existing Act will have to continue to apply.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Jeppe. If he had not stated at the beginning that he was going to support this Bill, I would have thought that he was going to oppose it, because in fact he gave very valid reasons for opposing this piece of legislation, some of which I obviously agree with. To pursue this point, I want to ask, if I may, a number of what I believe are relevant questions the hon. the Minister must answer. The first is: Why was this item of copyright selected, taken out and a whole machinery created for it while other aspects of copyright are completely ignored? It is not enough to say that there are infringements mainly of films. There is a very serious problem, for instance in regard to music.

I shall reply to that.

Well, I hope so. I find it very difficult to understand why this particular item of copyright should be selected, that we should have a registrar who should just deal with films—let us be frank about this—while so far as books, records, or any other matter where copyright is as vital and as important as it is in this particular aspect, nothing is said at all. I have a very great difficulty here, because in so far as the film industry is concerned, the film industry is with limited exception—and I asked the hon. the Minister a question the other day to highlight this—substantially a foreign industry. The copyright position in South Africa in respect of films causes a tremendous drain of foreign exchange in respect of royalties. The film industry is a very powerful industry and it is a very influential industry. What worries me is that whether the pressure that has come from this powerful industry, where money leaves the country in very substantial quantities, is a pressure which has resulted in the creation of a State department virtually just for this particular industry. There are many aspects of this piece of legislation which one finds very difficult to understand, not difficult to understand in the sense of reading them, but difficult to understand why this should be done, why it should be done for this particular industry, and why it should be done under these particular circumstances.

Let me put this matter very simply. I think that one can regard the film industry, the cinema industry, in so far as the exhibition of it is concerned as something which gives pleasure to the poorer section of the community. In a large measure it is not the people of substantial means who receive a substantial portion of their entertainment from going to the cinema. Yet we have in South Africa a film industry with prices which I think are tremendously high, where you have an outflow of foreign exchange, where there were, in the last couple of years, a tremendous increase in cinema prices just before the advent of TV. Yet for this kind of situation we create a completely new State department. What I find even more remarkable is that it is this hon. Minister who introduces it, this Minister who is charged with fighting inflation in South Africa and who talks about all of us having to fight inflation. He comes here at this moment of time in order to create a complete governmental machinery, a completely new structure, a completely new bureaucratic machine in order to assist purely the people in the cinema industry. That is what the hon. the Minister is doing. And he is supposed to be the fighter against inflation. He has not even told us what this is going to cost us. What is this machinery going to cost South Africa? How many more offices are we going to have? How big is the thing going to be? The time has come in South Africa that we have got to call a halt to bureaucratic expansion and if this Government really believes that you have to cut down on State expenditure, you do not create new Government departments at a time when you should be fighting inflation. You cannot, as the hon. the Minister is so good at doing, tell the public to make sacrifices. They must cut back, they must do it all and in the meantime the bureaucratic empires keep on expanding in South Africa. That is what is wrong with this piece of legislation, and this is what one cannot understand. There are so many unanswered questions in regard to this matter. Why is it, for example, that there was apparently not the degree of consultation that there should be? Will the hon. the Minister tell us what consultation did take place? Why is this being rushed through?

It is not being rushed through.

Of course it is! Why did you not consult? Why have you not consulted with interested parties? Tell us then with whom you have consulted. Why must this piece of legislation come at this moment of time? There is a strange aura around this whole thing about which I think the hon. the Minister must do something in order to disclose it.

Cloak and daggers.

“Cloak and daggers”, says the hon. member for Jeppe.

Shame!

There are other aspects concerning this matter. Registration also involves other people in expense. Those who are not concerned with this may be the small people, but being small is not a crime. They may be quite honest about copyright, but in terms of this legislation they will have to watch the Gazette or the Patents Journal, which the hon. member quite rightly suggested as a means of advertising, if this is going to be done. One would also have to keep an eye on all sorts of other things. When one wants to apply for copyright, one has also first to decide whether one is prepared to involve oneself in expense. On top of that, if one wanted to exercise what is a democratic right in South Africa, i.e. to protect one’s own interests, one could be compelled to furnish security. This is a complete departure from the normal rules. Normally it is the plaintiff who is a foreigner or the impecunious plaintiff who has to furnish security. Now, when the big battalions are on the march, if the little guy has the temerity to oppose anything, he will be made to furnish security as well. Is this not rather strange? There must be some reason for this. Surely the hon. the Minister is not the person who is not going to protect the little guy who merely wants to protect his rights. That is one of the things that is so strange about this. People are being put to expense and will continually have to be watching the Gazette or the Patents Journal. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would like to take us into his confidence and tell us who actually came forward with this idea. Who actually came forward with the first draft of this Bill? Where did it all originate? I think that we in this House are entitled to know what this is all about. When the hon. the Minister replies, I think he should tell us how much South Africa is paying in foreign exchange every year.

That has got nothing to do with the Bill.

Of course it has something to do with the Bill. I shall tell the hon. the Minister why it has something to do with the Bill. It has something to do with the Bill because the State is going to considerable expense to create a new Government department at a time when it should not be incurring such expenditure.

Where do you get that from?

This is being done in order to further protect the interests of people who are causing us a tremendous loss of foreign exchange. That is what it is all about. That is why the hon. the Minister must tell us what amounts of foreign exchange are leaving South Africa every year in this regard.

There are other things that also need to be said. How does one object to a film on the strength of an advertisement? How does one know whether it infringes a copyright or not? How does one know whether a man owns the copyright or does not? The only way to test this is to be able to see the film. This is something completely different to a trade mark application, since one can judge from a trade mark what the position is. It is quite different to a patent application, where one can look at the specifications. This is quite a different kettle of fish. The beginning of a film might be quite legitimate, the ending might be quite legitimate and the title completely different, while the middle portion may be a complete infringement of copyright. This Bill does not grant any protection in this regard. I have already referred to the issue of objections without the danger of being involved in heavy costs.

Then we have the normal rules in regard to evidence. Surely the normal rules in regard to leading evidence by affidavit or an commission should apply, not a special set of rules in terms of which affidavits can be presented at complete odds with the normal procedure in a Supreme Court. This all seems to be designed to help the big battalions. This is what worries me. This is what I am concerned about. There are many technical aspects of this Bill, for example the distinction between the administrative and judicial functions which are to be exercised by the registrar. That has been blurred. This is again a departure from tradition. The hon. member for Jeppe has said that he has misgivings. He is unhappy and has criticized the Bill. In fact, he has referred to it as “cloak and dagger” measure. We want to go a little further and express our views by moving an amendment. I consequently move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech used, what I consider, a most telling phrase, particularly in the light of the argument used by the hon. member for Yeoville. He said that this was a system which was being instituted for voluntary registration of rights. I do not know whether I can go all the way with the hon. member for Yeoville in the arguments which he has advanced, but I do believe that he has a point. I think the point was covered by what the hon. member for Jeppe said earlier when he said that he wondered why this had been done by way of a new Bill with a separate structure which was being established instead of doing it within the ambit of the existing Copyright Act.

The hon. member for Yeoville has moved that the House decline to pass the Second Reading on the grounds that the legislation creates unnecessary new administrative structures at a time when State expenditure should be cut down and that the Bill selects one particular aspect of copyright for preferential treatment. I believe that the grounds which the hon. member for Yeoville has advanced are perfectly valid but I do not believe that they are sufficient grounds to reject this Bill. I say that for the reason that there is an evil which exists and the hon. member for Yeoville concedes this. Whether it is the big boys who are eating the little ones or the little ones who are eating the big ones, I shall deal with a little later. Although this is only one aspect of copyright which is now being singled out for preferential treatment, in the words of the hon. member for Yeoville, I believe that this is at least a step in the right direction. As the hon. member for Jeppe said, we also would like to see this principle extended to the very spheres which the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned, the playing of music being the main or possibly the biggest offence in the country today as far as copyright is concerned. The hon. the Minister knows that we who have supermarkets and trading stores have been hounded by an organization recently because we are playing music or because they are afraid that we may be playing music in our supermarkets or stores. They say that they are entitled to their rights and I believe that they are.

The Performing Rights Society.

Yes, the Performing Rights Society. I did not want to name them. The hon. the Minister mentioned them and we might as well mention them now. The Performing Rights Society is looking after the interests of the composers of music and those who perform the music. I believe that they are doing a good job of work, but I believe that the hon. the Minister must help them to achieve their object and he can help them with this sort of Bill. For that reason I believe that the scope of this Bill is too narrow. I am afraid that we cannot agree with the hon. member for Yeoville since we do not believe that his reasons are sufficient to reject the Bill. We will therefore support the hon. the Minister in the Second Reading, but I believe that we should try to make it as effective a measure as possible.

I want to talk about the whole question of copyright and what exactly is implied. The bit of research which I have done seems to imply that copyright means whatever the persons concerned want it to mean. If we look at the existing Copyright Act, we find that the rights as far as the owner of a copyright is concerned shall exist for a period of 50 years. I believe that in overseas countries this varies and that the generally accepted term is a term of only 25 years. That period of ownership of a copyright is now transferred into this Bill.

Not the duration of that right.

With respect, in clause 19 we read—

However, that concerns a period of 50 years, as is laid down in the Copyright Act. I am speaking specifically in respect of ownership of the copyright. I am not dealing now with licensees at all. Accepting that that ownership shall be 50 years in terms of the Act and in terms of the Bill before us, has the hon. the Minister or his department made any contact with any overseas organization which controls similar rights over there? I believe there should have been the very closest liaison with such organizations because the rights we are dealing with here spring mainly from overseas.

There is another aspect to this. It concerns the licensee who negotiates with organizations overseas for the rights in respect of a certain film. Such rights are sometimes very expensive. I think we must leave out for the moment the big boys who show 35 mm films. I think we must deal with the films that have created the problem, and that is the home movies, i.e. the 16 mm and 8 mm films and also the cassettes. The people who deal with these pay large amounts of money. I believe that a particular distributor in South Africa paid approximately R1 500 for the right to distribute a particular film in this country. What is more, he did not obtain a sole right or an exclusive right. The cost of an exclusive right to one of the so-called “spectaculars” is prohibitive. What provision is made in this Bill for any other licensee to have a similar right in respect of the same film?

Provision is made for that in the Bill.

Is provision made for more than one person to have a right in respect of a particular film?

Yes.

I see, the hon. the Minister has made provision for that.

While we are dealing with that, I think we should look at another problem, and that is that certain films are remade. I am now not talking of the reissuing of a film. For instance, there was a film by the name of Jigsaw—I do not recollect seeing it—which was first made in 1961. The stars were Jack Warner and a fellow by the name of Lewis. The film was made by Universal (British). In 1968 the same film was remade by Universal in America. The stars in that case were fellows by the name of Jarden and Dilman. What is more, I believe the same film was remade a third time under a different title. I believe it was then called Gun Moll. How is the hon. the Minister going to cope with this? I hope he takes cognizance of this matter and that he will take note of it in his regulations and in the application of the copyright rights.

Now I come to the question of the licensee. When he obtains certain copyright rights, it is specified on the certificate he receives whether or not he has a sole or exclusive right. It is specified, too, whether those rights apply to theatrical distribution or to non-theatrical distribution, which means home movies, etc. It is also specified whether those rights apply for 35 mm films, 16 mm films, 8 mm films or for TV. Then, of course, in respect of television there is the further subdivision of cassettes and films. I believe there is an organization overseas which sells films on which the copyright has already lapsed. I believe that these are being sold on the open market. I hope the hon. the Minister will take cognizance of these facts when it comes to the registration of these copyrights.

There is another aspect I should like to mention. I refer to the fact that the licensees obtain their rights for a specific period. What is going to be the position with the registrar’s register? Is it perpetually going to be brought up to date? How is the Minister going to control the expiration of the copyright, especially since on occasion such copyright is renewed and does therefore not always lapse? There is another type of copyright which applies mainly, I believe, to educational and religious films and which are sold for the lifetime of the print. There is no period specified. As long as such film is capable of being shown, it is shown. Another feature that I believe the hon. the Minister should reply to before we proceed to the next stage of this Bill, is the question of definition. The definition of a cinematograph film is contained in the Copyright Act. It reads as follows—

1. (a) of being shown as a moving picture; or
2. (b) of being recorded on other material (whether translucent or not) by the use of which it can be so shown.

The essential seems to be a moving picture. In other words, it does not apply to slides or film strips. I wonder whether there is any specific reason why these were left out. They are being used extensively, particularly in educational and religious films, and I believe that the hon. the Minister should comment on that.

There is one other point. I wonder if the hon. the Minister would tell us what the situation is going to be with regard to films which are being shown, and which will be shown, on SABC television. I am sure the hon. the Minister is aware that there was a move to exempt SABC Television from the necessity of acquiring copyright rights, and that there was also …

[Inaudible.]

Oh, there is the hon. the Minister of National Education, right there! … that there was also a move to take away the protection which was afforded copyright owners as far as films that were shown on SABC Television were concerned. I see the hon. the Minister of National Education is nodding his head. I hope either he or his hon. colleague, has the answer to this, because I believe this is something we should consider …

I submitted it to my colleague.

The hon. the Minister has submitted it?

I said “no” to him.

The hon. the Minister says that he said “no” to the hon. the Minister of National Education.

And I agreed with him.

The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs says he said “no” to the hon. the Minister of National Education. I hope the hon. the Minister of National Education will give us a statement to that effect so that he will remove the doubt that exists in the minds of many people who have paid a great deal of money for such rights.

It appears as if my time is running out. There are other matters I would like to discuss with the hon. the Minister, matters which will best be discussed during the Committee Stage when we deal with individual provisions. However, at this stage, I believe we can say that, because of the tremendous amount of money paid out by dealers in this particular industry, we believe the honest people in that industry should be protected. The hon. the Minister may not be aware of it, but during the sitting of the commission of inquiry into the Publications Act, we had a lot of evidence of piracy, of circumventing the Copyright Act, and of inability to enforce the Copyright Act. I hope this register that is going to be compiled, will help the present owners of copyrights. I hope it will also help those people in the industry who will be buying films in future, because they will now have the opportunity of going to one point in order to ascertain whether or not the rights to a particular film which has been offered to them, have been granted in South Africa or whether they will be able to obtain the sole and exclusive right to distribute such film in this country. We therefore support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Sir, I am simply rising to say that I appreciate the support, even though it was given with reservations, of the Official Opposition. I want to react to the hon. member for Yeoville for just a moment. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the hon. member, in his usual manner, unburdened himself of a number of arguments which had absolutely nothing to do with the essence of the legislation. He may be an authority on how a person makes money out of the country, but what bearing this has on this legislation, I really do now know. But I want to ask him a question. His party are the people who kick up such a fuss about the protection of human rights, and this afternoon he quarreled with me, when we in fact want to protect peoples’ rights, because I want to facilitate the mechanism for protecting peoples’ rights. He says I am making a mistake. Sir, I want to ask him this: Is the protective value of a right determined by the person to whom the right attaches, or do we have an absolute responsibility to protect rights? I find it astonishing that the hon. members on that side of the House, and in that specific comer, can find arguments for such circumstances just as it suits them. What is his second argument? He levelled an accusation at me and said that I was going to extend bureaucratic institutions further. But surely there is at present a department dealing with copyright and patents. Surely this does not require a new department to be established to do this work. Surely this is a special division of copyright which we wish to protect in a specific manner here. This is what is at issue here, and surely in a specific manner here. This is what is at issue here, and surely this does not in any way imply what the hon. member alleged it implies. But I want to ask him what evidence he has adduced to prove that we now want to use this legislation to protect the rights of the great battalions against the little people. I challenge him to produce his evidence for that. He can produce absolutely no evidence for that.

You are not interested in the little man.

Sir, if I had not been interested in the little man, I would not have taken the trouble to protect the little man against big exploiters by means of the Trade Practices Act. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not tell that story here. His arguments this afternoon were nothing but a lot of political arguments. What is the legislation concerned with in essence? It is concerned with one thing only, and that is the effective protection, not of rights created by the legislation, but of existing rights, and to facilitate the procedure for protecting these rights. I said this in my Second Reading speech and I should like to repeat it to the hon. member because he sees something sinister in this—

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was quite correct, viz. that we have here a system of voluntary registration of copyright. The question which is relevant, and I think this is a completely fair question which both Opposition groups actually put to me by implication, is why this legislation is necessary, why is it being done in a desperate law? Why could it not simply have been done merely as an amendment to the existing Copyright Act.

Allow me, for just a moment, to furnish a little background information. It is a fact, and hon. members are aware of it, that during the past few years there has been large-scale illegal distribution of unauthorized copies of foreign cinematograph films here in the Republic. This has caused a specific problem, and no compensation was paid to the lawful owners, be they large or small, of the copyright in these films. A person is entitled to payment if one’s copyright is transferred or used. This practice, and its extent, has resulted in the provisions of the Berne Convention for the protection of literary, artistic and dramatic works, a convention of which South Africa is a member being violated in a deplorable manner to the detriment of South Africa. The interests of the legal owners and the legal rights of the legal importers of films who have in fact complied with the requirements of the convention have been seriously prejudiced. I now want to inform hon. members that South Africa has the unenviable international reputation, as regards this specific copyright, of being one of the greatest abusers of copyright in films in the world. I would be failing in my duty if I did not, under such circumstances, come to this House with this legislation. Next year I shall introduce legislation to revise the Copyright Act. However, I now have a specific responsibility which I have to fulfil, and I am doing so with the utmost readiness. The reason why I cannot amend the Copyright Act for this purpose is simply because the Copyright Act was drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the Berne Convention for the protection of literary and artistic works. The Republic of South Africa, is, as I have said, a member of this convention. The Copyright Act provides that no formalities may be prescribed for the acquisition of copyright protection in any work, including cinematograph films. The Berne Convention, however, provides that countries may pass legislation which is applicable to their own citizens.

The idea of a Registration of Copyright Bill in respect of films only is therefore to provide, outside the Copyright Act itself, that South African citizens comply with formalities. I hope the hon. member understand the subtle difference. The contemplated legislation is basically applicable to South African citizens. Persons who are not South African citizens are allowed to register voluntarily outside the Berne Convention. This is the technical reason for this legislation. I am not going to take this matter much further, except to say that this legislation is dealing with an abuse. It does not define copyright, does not determine the duration or extent thereof, but deals solely with a voluntary registration of existing rights so that the burden of proof in that regard may be easier. Everyone who has experience of this type of contravention, specifically as far as the cinematograph film industry is concerned, will know that it is virtually impossible to obtain a criminal conviction, because it takes years to collect the necessary evidence and that is of no avail from the civil law aspect, because the burden of proof entails such costs that it does not really in proportion to the damages which people are able to prove. Under the circumstances I want to suggest that this legislation is not perfect. There are various aspects to which hon. members referred, aspects for which we could make provision in the regulations. I shall consider the matter of notification. I concede at once that we are dealing here with a new mechanism of registration for existing rights. Naturally it would be far better if we governed this by way of regulation, than to include it in the legislation now and subsequently find that we cannot enforce the legislation.

I thank hon. members for their support of the Bill and I just want to repeat that the essence of this legislation is an easing of the burden of proof to enforce rights, and not to create rights.

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

Upon which the House divided:

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, S. A. Pitman, H. H. Schwarz, Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert, Mrs. H. Suzman and Mr. G. H. Waddell) appeared on one side,

Question declared affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members are aware, I announced in the Press on 22 March 1976 that because it was already clear that the merchant shipping activities would increase considerably within the foreseeable future, the Government had decided that the management and control of the harbour should be transferred from the Department of Industries—the present harbour authority—to the South African Railways Administration. At this stage I want to point out to hon. members that a further Bill is to be introduced and will appear later on the Order Paper, to empower the S.A. Railways Administration to take over the harbour. At present, the harbour is proclaimed as a harbour in terms of the provisions of the Saldanha Bay Harbour Construction Act, 1973, (Act No. 29 of 1973) and in order to make possible the proclamation and management thereof as a merchant harbour in terms of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act, 1957, certain amendments to the Saldanha Bay Harbour Construction Bill—in fact those envisaged in the Bill we are now considering—will have to be effected.

For the information of hon. members I might just mention that a part of the present proclaimed harbour was assigned by the State President to the South African Iron and Steel Industrial Corporation by proclamation in terms of the Saldanha Bay Harbour Construction Act of 1973 and that at the moment, Iscor is undertaking the construction of the harbour works required for the ore export project in this portion of the harbour which has been assigned to it.

The proposed transfer of control to the South African Railways Administration, as well as the proposed amendments, envisage the maintenance of the status quo and the entrenchment of Iscor’s position, to enable it to finalize this project and control and manage the works in so far as these are Iscor’s concern.

I now want to refer briefly to the clauses. Clause 1 of the Bill envisages the adjustment of the present definition of “Harbour” which will result in the provisions of the Saldanha Bay Harbour Construction Act, after the amendment, being applicable only in that portion of the harbour assigned by the State President in terms of section 2(1)(b) of the Act.

Furthermore, clause 1 also inserts definitions in respect of the concepts “administration”, “subsidiary company” and “Corporation” which are now necessary.

Clause 2:

The harbour works that Iscor is building in that portion of the harbour assigned to Iscor in terms of section 2(1) of the Act, are being erected and will be maintained by the Corporation at its own expense. It is therefore deemed necessary to supplement the authority of the State President by including the terms “position” and “maintenance” in its assignment to the Corporation in terms of section 2.

Furthermore, it is deemed necessary to add a proviso to section 2(1) of the existing Act to put it beyond all doubt that the repeal of the proclamation in terms of section 2 of the Act—in order to enable the Railways Administration to make the necessary arrangements for the proclamation of the harbour as a merchant harbour—will not detract from the assignment of a portion of the harbour to Iscor by the State President in terms of section 2 of the existing Act.

Clause 3:

Because the harbour works built by Iscor, as well as the dredging work within the protected section of the harbour undertaken by Iscor, will be to the benefit of any development of, for example, a merchant harbour or ship repair wharf within the protected section of the harbour, section 3 of the existing Act makes provision whereby the Minister may provide that any other person who may be benefited by such harbour works or maintenance work will make a proportional contribution towards the financing thereof.

Clause 3 envisages the amendment of section 3 of the Act to include also financing costs in regard to the concepts “management, control, possession and maintenance” in the section and, with a view to the take-over by the South African Railways Administration at a later stage of certain harbour works such as the breakwater between Hoedjiespunt and Marcus Island, also includes the State as a party in the scope of the provisions of section 3.

†I now want to refer to clause 4 and 5. Section 4 of the existing Act provides the powers of the corporation to construct, equip, manage, possess and maintain the part of the harbour assigned to it, while section 5 of the existing Act empowers the Minister of Economic Affairs to promulgate the regulations which may be required for the efficient management and control of the harbour or any specific part of the harbour, including control over the movement of ships within the harbour or any specific part of the harbour.

In view of the fact that the South African Railways Administration will administer the port in terms of the harbour regulations promulgated in terms of the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidated) Act, 1957, it is necessary that sections 4 and 5 of the Act be amended as proposed in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill to avoid a duplication of statutory provisions. As hon. members will notice, these amendments concern matters of an administrative nature regarding the management of the port.

As regards the provisions contained in clauses 4(f) and (g), I wish to point out that in view of the establishment of a steel factory by Iscor at Saldanha and the export of the products of this factory through the Saldanha Bay harbour, provision must be made that a subsidiary company of the corporation be in a position to utilize the powers of the corporation within the part of the harbour assigned to the corporation for this purpose.

Furthermore and in accordance with the Government’s decision that provision be made that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line in consultation with the South African Railways Administration be utilized for the conveyance of public traffic, section 4(3) of the existing Act is amended to provide that the Iscor harbour works may also be utilized for traffic other than Iscor traffic as may be agreed upon with the South African Railways Administration.

Clause 6 of the Bill contains a consequential amendment to the long title of the existing Act.

In conclusion I now refer to clause 7. The existing Act came into operation on 5 April 1973, but the harbour could only be proclaimed and a portion assigned to the corporation in terms of Act 29 of 1973, after extensive survey work which was not foreseen and which included the surveying of the highwater mark of the entire protected part of the harbour.

However, as Iscor and its contractors commenced with their operations within the harbour soon after the promulgation of the Act, it is not unreasonable that their interest in this regard should be protected and that provision be made as proposed in clause 7 of the Bill that the relevant proclamation be deemed to have come into operation on the date of the commencement of the principal Act.

Clause 8 contains the short title.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is now under consideration by the House is the second of a trinity of Bills in which Iscor has been involved. It is only right that we should recall the tremendous South African venture which is of such great economic importance to our country, the Sishen-Saldanha railway line to ship ore from Iscor’s installation at Sishen to overseas countries, and which has resulted in the necessity for the construction of the development works in the Saldanha Bay harbour area. We should recognize very pertinently that Saldanha Bay is one of the great harbour bays of the world. In fact, it is possibly one of the largest natural harbours of the world. When the development of the Sishen-Saldanha railway line took place Iscor undertook the construction of the necessary harbour works in order to ensure the smooth shipment of the ore in major ore carriers. As a result it has now been foreseen that with the recognition of this fact, the Sishen-Saldanha railway line will either be a dual purpose or a multi-purpose railway line largely for the shipment of ore. The situation with regard to the harbour itself has come under review and there was an explanatory memorandum to the Saldanha Bay Harbour Acquisition and Equipment Bill, 1976, in which the comment is as follows and I quote—

If one could see a plan of the harbour, one would realize that the total harbour area is larger than the harbour of New York or larger than the harbour area of Rotterdam or Amsterdam. So, we are dealing with a very considerable area. This area is not necessarily to be controlled by Iscor as such. When one takes the details of the Bill under consideration into account, it will be seen, on consulting the chart, that the area of jurisdiction over which Iscor will now have possession and maintenance rights, is limited virtually to the quay walls and the quay service of the construction which they have undertaken, a very expensive construction, but of necessity a physical construction jutting out from the shore into the harbour area itself. As we see it, the Bill provides that the Department of Economic Affairs is going to assign various rights over the port area to the railways, to Iscor and possibly later on to further private enterprise in the event of private enterprise undertaking the construction of a dry-dock.

We believe, in view of the fact that Iscor has undertaken tremendous capital expenditure in the development of this major enterprise, that the building works have already been completed at the expense of Iscor, that we can go along with the Government in their concept that Iscor should be left in control and possession of the maintenance rights for the physical area from which they will be shipping ore. We do believe that with the development of the harbour as such, it is only logical that in the wider sense the control of the harbour as such will pass to the S.A. Railways and Harbours and that this Bill is giving implementation to this fact. At this stage we are a little concerned about the question: under whose authority will the old and historic fishing harbour come when the Bill goes through. This harbour has been in existence for over 100 years, and today, with the development of the fishing industry and the crayfish industry as such, it is quite a considerable fishing harbour. We are also concerned about the fact that the Bill makes no mention of the sea area just off-shore of the existing prescribed harbour limits, which usually have to be prescribed because one cannot have tankers or other heavy shipping anchoring in the entrance to the harbour thereby disturbing shipping as such.

We believe that the Bill is not the last word in the history of the development of Saldanha Bay, nor in the history of the development of the Iscor projects along the shores of Saldanha Bay. What we are seeing here at the moment is, in our belief, a necessary development which was foreseen by hon. members of this side of the House when the original Bill was passed. We believed, too, that this Bill foresees the development of the harbour as being of tremendous interest to the Northern Cape as a growth point. It is our belief that this Bill carries the goodwill of the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries, and we are therefore going to support the Government in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we cannot share in the support of this Bill by hon. members to the right of us. This is a question that has been coming up over a considerable period of time and has not finally been put to rest in the sense that there is still farther legislation to come. What this Bill is simply doing, however, as preceding Bills have done and as subsequent Bills will do, is to try to clear up the muddle in the division of responsibility between Iscor and the S.A. Railways and Harbours. On the one hand the S.A. Railways and Harbours, as we now know, has surrendered its right to the railway line, which has gone through various stages to become a multi-purpose line, and now the hon. the Minister introduces this piece of legislation which states, in effect, that the developments at Saldanha Bay have got to the stage where we should have a commercial harbour. He then goes part of the way and says that if that is so, clearly the harbour should be handed over to the S.A. Railways and Harbours. I was careful to say “part of the way” because if he had gone the whole way we would have had no trouble in supporting this Bill, just as we would have had no trouble if the S.A. Railways had been given the management of a multi-purpose railway line. This is clearly the best solution in the interests of the country, and indeed I would have thought in the interests of the taxpayer, for the S.A. Railways to be totally responsible both for the harbour and for the railway line. If one looks at this Bill one sees fairly clear areas, mentioned in the Bill, which are likely to introduce a degree of inefficiency which would not otherwise be present if the harbour were quite rightly run in toto by the S.A. Railways, or indeed if the harbour and the railway line were run by one other party—i.e. Iscor—which would, of course, be wrong. Having both run by the S.A. Railways would clearly result in a more efficient management of the situation.

I now want to refer to the fact that there are going to be certain areas of potential conflict of interests, on occasion, between the S.A. Railways and Harbours representing other parties on the one hand, and Iscor representing itself and on occasion, as mentioned in this Bill, representing other people. Apart from that main principle as a reason why we cannot support this Bill, there are three particular areas where we have grave reservations. I want to refer to the proviso to the proposed new section 3, which reads—

In principle we have no objection to that, but we would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he is going to have considerable difficulties, in practice, in arriving at what is an equitable ratio between Iscor on the one hand and the other parties on the other. Clause 4(e) also states—

1. (j) to fix and from time to time to alter wharf dues, rates and other dues and charges at the harbour.

As we understand this—and I would appreciate confirmation from the hon. the Minister—this refers to Iscor in relation to the part of the harbour assigned to it. There again we have some difficulties. Clearly there is a possibility that there might be a difference between what is charged in the other section of the harbour, run by the S.A. Railways, and what Iscor will want to charge in its so-called private reserve. I now wish to refer to clause 4(3), which only goes to reinforce our objections to this Bill. I quote—

That we have no problem with—

Not only has Iscor financed part of the harbour, therefore being entitled to retain the management, possession and control of it, but here we are again falling into the same old trap we fell into in respect of the railway line. We are saying that Iscor can handle other people’s goods and services through its part of the harbour. We find this very difficult to take. The hon. the Minister quoted figures in the Other Place. I hope he will correct me if I am wrong, but he said that the total expenditure—and that is on the whole Saldana Bay complex—was made up as follows: The railway system R378 million—a fact which is not a subject for debate here—the harbour R129 million and the ore-handling installations at the harbour R35 million. That gives a total of R164 million.

Then he made mention of R48 million as interest up to 30 June 1976. If one roughly pro rates that, R16 million then relates to the harbour and ore-handling facilities, and one arrives at a total of R180 million. Our feeling about this piece of legislation is that because the hon. the Minister is moving money from one pocket to another, both pockets being filled by the taxpayer ultimately, why does he not simply move R180 million to the South African Railways from the Treasury, that is put that money up and take Iscor out of the harbour, which will also help Iscor in its financing difficulties, so that we will then have a completely cohesive unit run under one management? If the hon. the Minister would do that, we would have greater confidence in the management of this particular harbour in future. Naturally we would have liked him to do the same as far as the railway line is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Johannesburg North is taking up a very strange attitude towards this Bill. In fact, he has just about argued round a full circle and at the end of it, even though he said that he was opposed to the Bill, many of his arguments were actually in favour of the legislation. In this Bill the Government is assigning Iscor a portion of the Saldanha Bay harbour. In terms of clause 4 Iscor may assign the harbour to a subsidiary company which holds out prospects to foreign shareholders and to private shareholders, perhaps, to participate. I would have thought this is a matter which the hon. member for Johannesburg North would have welcomed. However, obviously he is against the prospect of foreign shareholding or perhaps private enterprise participating. If he were in favour of it, he should have stated his case.

The other fact is that obviously the S.A. Railways and Harbours has come to the conclusion at this stage that the scheme of Iscor is not viable enough to embark upon. Therefore it would not like to involve taxpayers’ money and it would not like to hold the taxpayers responsible for that particular scheme. I know that Iscor itself is to a large extent financed by the taxpayers, but at least it generates, if I may use such a term, some of the risk capital that is needed. It also has the opportunity of taking in partners, both foreign and local, and in addition to that, its partners and itself are aware of the risk factor. All new ventures have a risk factor and our Railways and Harbours Administration obviously cannot take the risks that Iscor is prepared to take. Iscor can act as entrepreneur to a far greater extent than the Railways and Harbours Administration can. If the Railways and Harbours Administration does not want to take the risk, then I want to know why the hon. member for Johannesburg North wants to compel it to take the risk. The hon. member for Johannesburg has only one possible leg to stand on and that is if he argued that the Railways and Harbours Administration in fact wants to undertake this particular expenditure which I believe may be in the vicinity of approximately R130 million. However, obviously the Railways and Harbours Administration does not want to embark upon this particular expenditure and as such I do not see why the hon. member for Johannesburg North wants to compel it to undertake this expenditure.

Why do you not ask the General Manager of the South African Railways and Harbours?

I am confident that the Railways would not want to undertake it, but the hon. member for Johannesburg North and the Progs are using this argument in their opposition to the Bill as a mere publicity stunt. Iscor is committed to mammoth projects and, indeed, needs very large finance for this particular project. There are many aspects of Iscor’s operations of which we as an Opposition are most critical, but I feel that as at the moment there is a great shortage of funds, it is essential that we do everything possible, everything in our power to facilitate this particular scheme. For the Progs now to be a fly in the ointment, is typical of what we have come to expect of them.

It is a Prog in the pickle.

I am told it is a Prog in the pickle!

This measure is yet another one which is designed to bring about greater certainty to the Saldanha Bay scheme. We hope that Iscor will operate its portion of the harbour most successfully and that it will become very viable. The totality of the entire scheme opens up a new world for that region and, indeed, for South Africa and we wish Iscor the greatest of success.

We should like to have more information and greater detail as to what is exactly planned by Iscor and what the total cost of the entire scheme will amount to. Under clause 4 provision is made for a subsidiary company and the corporation may form a subsidiary company for this purpose which may construct, equip, control, manage, possess and maintain the harbour. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has specific partners in mind for Iscor and whether he is prepared to make a statement in that regard. Will the hon. the Minister also give us the assurance that however the shares in the subsidiary company are allocated and whatever happens, the majority shareholding will be under South African control? We should also like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he would welcome private participation from South Africans in the subsidiary company. I should like also to ask the hon. the Minister how the Iscor portion of the harbour will affect the anticipated semis plant and possibly the dry dock facilities. What is the anticipated cost of all these schemes? Will Iscor be entitled to charge whatever tariffs it wants?

I should like to raise a few matters in regard to the tariffs because I consider them most important. Will the hon. the Minister give us the assurance that there will be no loss to Port Elizabeth in regard to ore presently going to that part? Will the hon. the Minister tell us precisely how the tariffs will differ when private enterprise uses Port Elizabeth as opposed to Saldanha? What will the difference be in the tariffs payable by Iscor to itself as opposed to the tarrifs applicable to private enterprise using Saldanha? We want an assurance from the hon. the Minister that at no time will he tolerate a situation where Iscor or Saldanha operates in a way which will affect Port Elizabeth adversely. We fully realize that Iscor has made an enormous investment in Saldanha. Obviously Iscor will expect a return on this tremendous investment. Therefore, whilst Iscor will, in terms of this Bill, be entitled to call upon others using its facilities to pay for those facilities, and whilst we wish Iscor every success, the hon. the Minister will realize that he has to perform in a dual capacity. The hon. the Minister is the boss, if I may say so, of Iscor—Iscor falls under him and he is responsible, to a large extent, for the success of Iscor. We realize that he has to do his duty in so far as Iscor is concerned. On the other hand the hon. the Minister, in another capacity, is the guarantor of free enterprise and he is also responsible for ensuring that established areas are not penalized in circumstances such as we have at present. In conclusion I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that the vested interests of the Port Elizabeth area are not adversely affected.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply briefly to hon. members’ speeches on this Bill. An important question put to me by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, was who would be in control of the fishing harbour at Saldanha. In this connection I should like to explain that this forms part of the harbour which will be transferred to the South African Railways in terms of the Act As soon as transfer has been taken, however, it will once again be proclaimed a fishing harbour in terms of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1973, which will fall under the control of my department. In other words, there will ultimately be no change in the de facto situation.

I should like to thank hon. members for their support of the legislation. I shall come to the standpoint of the hon. member for Johannesburg North in a moment. I think it is important that, as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said, in accepting the legislation, we are actually giving our final endorsement to a very great development in our country, which, I believe, may make a special contribution towards the development of the geographical area which we call the West Coast, but also to the western part of the Northern Cape, the potential of which, I believe, will ultimately find an outlet through this harbour.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North naturally objected to the legislation. He could not do otherwise if he wanted to be consistent. He opposed the legislation in connection with the railway line and therefore he naturally had no other choice than to oppose this legislation too. I want to tell him at once that I understand his arguments, although I cannot agree with them. I want to tell him once again that I do not agree with him that the legislation before us and what he calls the divided control over the harbour, need result in a lack of efficiency. I think that when mature people—I shall understand if the hon. members on the other side have difficulty in defining the concept of “maturity”—co-operate, it need not lead to inefficiency. It is only in an atmosphere of that kind that this type of co-operation may naturally lead to inefficiency.

As far as the tariffs are concerned, I have already explained what the position with the railway line will be. The same principle also holds for the handling of ore. Let me make it very clear that the first principle of this Bill is that the harbour will also be made a general harbour. As far as the handling of general freight in the harbour is concerned, the idea is that this will be done by the South African Railways. Naturally Iscor will retain control over that section of the harbour, specifically the wharf, which is concerned with the export of ore. The tariffs to be paid by other exporters who make use of this harbour will be arranged in collaboration with the South African Railway Administration, as in the case of the railway line. The important point is that no other exporter of ore will be prejudiced by making use of the facilities concerned. I cannot take the matter any further than that with the hon. members of the PRP.

The hon. member for Walmer asked me certain questions which I should like to answer as far as I can. I have already indicated—the hon. member for Johannesburg North also quoted this—that the total cost of the scheme, which includes the railway line from Sishen to Saldanha, is expected to be as follows, estimated on the basis of June 1976 price levels: The railway system, R378 million; the harbour itself, R129 million; the installation for handling ore at the harbour, R35 million; and the total interest, R48 million. The total estimated cost of the scheme therefore amounts to R590 million. Allow me to mention in passing that in my opinion it is an achievement that both the harbour and its connection to the island, as well as the railway line, were completed in time. As far as I am concerned, a word of congratulation and appreciation should be addressed to the bodies responsible for this. The hon. member asked me who the proposed partners of Iscor were. The hon. member has already asked me questions in this connection, both during this and during previous sittings. However, he will just have to accept that—as I have indicated before—I am not able to give these particulars at this stage.

So she does not want to sign?

I am still coming to that. The hon. member is still very young. He will remember that she did not say yes straight away. I do not know whether she wants to sign or not. However, I want to indicate that these negotiations between the proposed partners and the scheme have reached a very delicate stage. The hon. member will also understand that various countries are concerned in this, various countries with various ideologies. He will understand what I mean. Therefore I do not believe it to be in the interests, firstly of the scheme—something which we all want—and secondly, of the country as a whole, for me to make any statement at this stage. However, I undertake towards the hon. member, as well as towards the hon. House, that as soon as I am in a position to make a statement on the matter, I shall make full particulars available to hon. members and to the country in general. The only thing which prevents me from speculating about the matter at this stage is the fact that I believe that the negotiations are at a sensitive, delicate stage and that for this reason I ought not to say anything about it now, here in the House or outside, which may cause the negotiations to fail. I hope that the hon. member will accept this explanation.

In general I just want to say that if this scheme comes to fruition—and I have every confidence it will—it will not only create opportunities for that particular part of our country, but will also create great opportunities in the Saldanha area. As a result it is expected that, should either we or Iscor be successful, this scheme will earn a net amount of R12 000 000 000 in foreign currency for us over a period of 20 years. This is entirely in line with the Government’s declared intention of following a policy of processing minerals so that the country will not have to export raw material only, but will be able to export labour as well; just as we often import from other countries.

Furthermore the hon. member asked me—I immediately want to add that he is a spokesman for the Eastern Cape; I also come from the Eastern Cape, from the George district— what the position would be concerning tariffs between Sishen and Saldanha and between Sishen and Port Elizabeth. I have already said something about this before. However, I want to repeat it tonight. The tariffs for third-party traffic—that is traffic apart from that of Iscor on the Sishen/Saldanha railway line—will be determined in co-operation with the S.A. Railways and will be applied in consultation with these two authorities. I want to add that there are two principles which will be applied as far as this is concerned. The first principle is that Iscor will not transport goods on its railway line at a loss. What is worrying the hon. member, I believe, is that the tariffs for the Sishen/Saldanha section may be lower than those between Sishen and Port Elizabeth. The first point is that there is a cost factor involved. Iscor cannot subsidize tariffs …

So it cannot be lower.

It cannot be lower. There ought to be an element of reassurance in this for the hon. member. I believe he knows what the present position is as far as transport of ore between Sishen and Port Elizabeth is concerned. The second principle is that we want to avoid favouring the one line above the other as far as possible. Allow me to say in this particular connection that we are concerned here not only with the tariffs for the line itself, we are also concerned with the tariffs for handling ore within the harbours, here and on the other side. We shall do everything in our power to ensure that the exporters of ore, whether to Port Elizabeth or from Sishen to Saldanha, will compete with one another on an equal footing. I do not think I can take that assurance any further at this stage.

Sir, I think I have answered the various aspects which hon. members raised here.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, gold mines classified as assisted gold mines in terms of section 2 of the Gold Mines Assistance Act, 1968, are assisted by the State. A company which carries on gold-mining operations can apply to the Minister to be classified as an assisted gold mine, and only under certain circumstances, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and having regard to any recommendations made by the Mining Leases Board, is a mine classified as an assisted gold mine.

†Section 3(1) of the Act provides that a company which has during any year of assessment carried on gold-mining operations on an assisted gold mine, shall in certain circumstances be paid a certain amount out of funds voted by Parliament, but in terms of the proviso to section 3(1), the amount paid to such company in respect of any year of assessment shall not exceed 25% of the mining income derived by it during the year of assessment from sales of gold and uranium. The State is therefore obliged to pay a producing assisted gold mine, depending on its mining profit or mining loss, a certain amount calculated according to a formula prescribed by section 3(1), but the amount must not exceed 25% of the mining income. It also follows that the maximum amount any assisted gold mine can receive from the State during any year of assessment, is 25% of its gold or uranium sales during that year.

*Owing to the increase in the price of gold during the financial year of 1974-’75, only five gold mines received a total amount of R1,187 million in State assistance in terms of the Act during that financial year. However, the price of gold dropped so sharply during the financial year of 1975-’76 and there was such an increase in the production costs that an amount of almost R20 million had to be voted by way of assistance to 13 assisted gold mines. If the gold price does not improve substantially and the production costs continue to increase at the present rate, it is anticipated that approximately nine assisted gold mines will have to be paid a total amount of approximately R44,5 million in terms of the Act during the financial year of 1976-’77. Hon. members will therefore agree with me that further drops in the gold price and increases in the production costs could push up the amount of the assistance considerably, and as I have said, the State is forced, in terms of the present provisions of the Act, to pay the assistance.

The position may arise, therefore, that the assistance rendered to assisted gold mines may impose a constantly increasing financial obligation on the State. There are no legal provisions in terms of which the assistance can be limited any further, for as I have said, it is anticipated that if the present circumstances continue, the State will have to pay an amount of R44,5 million in assistance during the financial year of 1976-’77, and this in spite of the fact that the assistance is at present limited in terms of the Act to a maximum amount of 25% of the mining income.

†Hon. members may ask whether legislation enabling the Minister to limit the amount of assistance is necessary in view of the fact that an assisted mine may be declassified as such in terms of section 2(5) of the Act, as amended in 1975. May I point out that an assisted gold mine cannot be declassified by the Minister of Mines without regard being had to certain circumstances set out in the Act, such as the quantity of gold or uranium being won and the quantities and grades of ores being mined and milled by such mine. Since the date of promulgation of the amending Act of 1975, three assisted gold mines have been notified of their declassification.

*Consequently there is no legal machinery for keeping within reasonable bounds, when circumstances so require, the assistance to assisted gold mines which cannot be declassified. For this reason, the Bill which is now being submitted for consideration is intended to enable the Minister of Mines, in consultation with the Minister of Finance and having regard to any recommendation made by the Mining Leases Board, to limit further the maximum amount in assistance received from the State by an assisted gold mine in terms of the proviso to section 3(1) of the Act. The additional limitation which is now being proposed is not automatically applicable to all assisted gold mines, but the smaller percentage by means of which the lower maximum amount is calculated, will be determined in respect of each mine individually. It is also being provided in the Bill that the smaller percentage than the 25%, as determined by the Minister, will apply only for a specific year of assessment, and that a mining company must be notified six months before the commencement of that specific year of assessment in respect of which such smaller percentage will be applicable.

As hon. members will notice, the amendment to section 6(2)(a) of the Act is necessary in consequence of the amendment to section 3(1).

Mr. Speaker, may I say at once that we on this side of the House support the Bill that has just been introduced by the hon. the Minister. Quite clearly the Gold Mining Assistance Act has been of enormous value to the gold-mining industry and to the country as a whole in that it has assisted the gold mines, at a time when the price of gold was insufficient to sustain a fully viable industry, to continue producing gold, to continue producing foreign exchange and to continue to produce the means which are needed by South Africa in order to sustain its economy. It has contributed a great deal to the conservation of those mines which were not running profitably enough, or which were running too marginally to produce the quantity of gold which they would have been able to produce had the gold price been an economic price, rising with demand and with production costs. It was during this period when the gold-mining industry laboured under a fixed gold price that the Gold Mines Assistance Act made this great contribution to the gold mining industry in South Africa. That legislation was passed and became an Act in 1968 and has been implemented for some considerable time with the results I have described.

Since then, as we all know, the gold-mining situation has changed in consequence of the change in the price of gold. A new set of economic circumstances arose but did not then have to be taken into account in connection with the assistance to gold mines. When that occurred, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, it was not in fact necessary to do anything much about it, because the sudden rise in the price of gold removed practically every gold mine out of the category where it needed assistance. In other words, the price of gold produced its own remedy. However, again things have changed. We are now in a third phase where, in fact, the price of gold has dropped quite considerably from the level it had reached. Inflation has taken a grip on the gold-mining industry, as it has on everything else, and the working costs of mines have increased very substantially.

Something like two months ago I asked for an inquiry to be made into the average working cost per fine ounce of gold in this country. Hon. members will recall that gold was sold by South Africa profitably at $35 per fine ounce, subsequently at $42½ per fine ounce, until a few years ago. If one were to try to sell gold at that price today, I doubt whether a single gold mine in South Africa could do so profitably. In fact, the average working cost per fine ounce of gold is calculated to be something in excess of $80. That is the working cost on average in South Africa today. This means that if the price of gold were to drop to the old official price of $42½ per fine ounce, our gold-mining industry, taken as a whole, would be running at a very considerable loss. The fact is that there are again mines which have become marginal in the present situation. There are many mines, fortunately a majority, which are still mining profitably and are producing gold and uranium at a profit. However, there are some which are again in a very vulnerable position. While maintaining the Gold Mines Assistance Act, the hon. the Minister has, I think rightly, come to this House with an amending Bill which takes account of the changed circumstances applying to the gold-mining industry. The ceiling of mining revenue, i.e. the income of the mine, set at 25%, was in fact the maximum amount of aid which could be given to a mine which was in need of such assistance.

In terms of the new provision the Minister may, after due consultation, decide that that maximum should be reduced in the case of certain mines; and furthermore, in terms of clause 2, he may decide that in calculating the amount of assistance that is due, which is based on the profits, account should be taken of the capital expenditure of the mine in such a way as to produce a figure not exceeding the new ceiling that has been established by the Minister after due consultation. This, the Minister has assured us, will be done case by case, with due notice to the mines concerned and with due warning so that there will be no sudden dislocation of the mining industry. We have ourselves had consultations with the interests concerned, and in all the circumstances we feel that the measure which the hon. the Minister is now proposing is not an unreasonable one. It is in fact a necessary adjustment to the changing circumstances of the mining industry, the price of gold and the cost involved in producing gold. For that reason we shall not oppose this Bill. We shall in fact give it free passage through the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will also support this Bill. [Interjections.] It is very rare to find sense prevailing on the part of all three parties in this House! Happily this is the case with this Bill. [Interjections.]

Order!

This Bill before us and its predecessor are simply a device which has been brought to this House, as I think the hon. the Minister will agree, to help particular categories of mines through a period of bad gold prices in the hope that the price will in time improve and that, once that interim period has passed, there will be benefits to South Africa. The hon. the Minister has asked for a wider discretion, to reduce the limit of 25% to such lessor percentage as he may determine. We understand that to mean in effect that the Minister is aiming at the phasing out of assistance to some of the mines which receive assistance from the Government on the present basis. What the Minister is saying, to my mind, is that he wants to have the right to pay a smaller amount where he feels that the larger amount is no longer justified in the present circumstances. As I have said, we have no problem in supporting that, because as we understand it, the conditions which apply to the Minister still mean that he has to be satisfied that any mine which is being given assistance will cease underground mining operations within a period of eight years. In addition, the Minister has to be satisfied that the life of the mine will be appreciably prolonged if he gives it 25% or some lesser percentage as he may determine.

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

No, I am not prepared to answer a question now.

Furthermore, the Minister has to be satisfied that there will be a significant increase in the production of gold and uranium for the benefit of South Africa. If those three conditions still apply, we shall have no difficulty in supporting this Bill.

I want to say to the Minister, however, that these are very uncertain times when it comes to the question of the gold price, which is basically what this measure is about, and I hope he will treat his discretion, if I may put it that way, with caution. If he looks back at the results of assistance to the gold mines in the past I think he will find that it is something which has been very worthwhile and to the benefit of our country, and that it is something which for once, I am delighted to say, stands to the credit of the Government. I know there is the question of six months’ notification, etc., but of course one of the critical problems that we face today is the balance of payments situation. As far as the balance of payments is concerned, I want to say that the question of whether the renewal of our expansion is led by exports or whether it is not will depend very greatly at this point in time on the price of gold, because gold means foreign currency to South Africa. I hope that the hon. the Minister will make up his mind after listening to the advice in regard to the various mines so that, when he looks at the present gold price, he will be inclined to take an optimistic point of view in regard to what is going to happen and the likely movement of that price in the future. A delicate balance needs to be struck because we have at this point in time in our country a very low, if not negative, rate of growth.

We have always had two types of mines in this country, viz. the marginal mines and the rich mines. For the hon. the Minister to take too pessimistic a view in so far as the marginal mines are concerned, may throw on to the labour market a very large number of people of all colours in South Africa, principally White and Black, but also Brown. Therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister will have a sense of cautious optimism, because we are now in the run-down, in the lead period, for the first auction to be held by the IMF. I hope that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that when we look at the price of gold, which is of the order of $125 to $130—leaving aside the question of devaluation as far as the rand is concerned—that to a very great extent the present price has already discounted those auctions. Therefore, one could also go further and say that we hope that the hon. the Minister will wait before he makes any judgments with regard to this matter until a number of these auctions have been conducted. It seems to us sitting on these benches that there is a probability that despite the actions of the anti-gold faction elsewhere in the world, there are going to be a very considerable number of bidders for gold at those auctions and if that is so, I hope that the hon. the Minister will have the courage to carry us through this period. If he can do so, and if we are correct, then in the future South Africa will benefit a very great deal more than what it would benefit should he give notice to some of the mines which get State assistance.

Mr. Speaker, I do not really want to make a speech, nor had I intended to make one. I simply wanted to ask the hon. member for Johannesburg North a question, but the hon. member would not reply to it. Consequently I shall put my question to him in the form of a speech. The amending Bill which is before us is concerned with assistance to gold mines. In that respect I just want to ask the hon. member the following question: Does he consider it to be a symbol or a tendency of creeping socialism or a tendency of enlightened capitalism?

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members of both parties on the other side for supporting this Bill. There is really nothing that can be added to what has been said, because this is a simple Bill. It merely proposes that the Minister should have the right, in the light of the fluctuations in the price of gold, to assist on a different basis in the future, after their circumstances have been re-examined, the mines we have been able to assist in the past. The Department of Mines and all the parties concerned will have to examine this matter very carefully in the future, and the hon. the Minister of Finance in particular will have to examine it very carefully, because this kind of assistance, which will be of the order of R44 million if we are to make the higher payments during the coming year, is the kind of assistance which can very easily amount to R100 million before you know where you are.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North asked us to be very cautious. Of course we shall be very cautious and the caution will stem from the approach of the Minister of Mines and of all the different parties concerned. I found it interesting to note the way in which the hon. member for Johannesburg North expressed the support of his party. I can understand that. There was a keener interest on the part of the hon. member when we spoke of gold. I do not blame the hon. member. He is very close to the gold mines. He also has a reason for his standpoint, of course. He and his party—all of us, in fact—have reason to be very grateful for what the State has done in the past to keep the industry going. However, the hon. member must not be quick to support us only when assistance to the gold mines is at stake. There are many other things which he would also do well to support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to try to answer the hon. member for Carletonville, who asked, if I understood him correctly, whether the gold mining industry was an example of creeping socialism.

I did not mean that. You did not understand me correctly. You are all wrong.

Well, then …

Try again. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite difficult to continue. I have listened with great attention to the hon. member for Carletonville on a number of occasions and very rarely have I ever suffered from the misapprehension that I did not hear what he was saying. On this occasion it is clear that I misunderstood him.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The proposed Bill to amend the Uranium Enrichment Act, 1970, is primarily concerned with the financing of the activities of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa, Limited.

The existing section 5 of the Uranium Enrichment Act provides, inter alia, that the State is the only shareholder in the corporation. Moreover it also provides that shares in the corporation have to be paid for from moneys appropriated by Parliament for this purpose. In practice, therefore, it means that the State is the only source for the financing of the activities of the corporation.

Since the establishment of the corporation on 1 April 1971, but particularly with the recent announcement by my predecessor that the Government was proceeding with a commercial plant, the structure of the corporation has become increasingly industry-orientated. It also goes without saying that the State, for example, cannot finance the construction of a commercial plant solely out of its own resources. Therefore other methods of supplementary financing have to be created, and the most appropriate step is, as in the case of such other corporations as Iscor and Armscor for example, to grant the Uranium Enrichment Corporation the necessary loan powers.

This entails that the Uranium Enrichment Act, 1970, has to be suitably amended, and it is therefore being proposed that section 3 of the Act be supplemented by the insertion of a new subsection 3(1)(h), as set out in clause 1 of the Bill.

†As I have said earlier, the State is the only shareholder in the corporation and pays for shares from funds appropriated by Parliament for this purpose This entails, in practice, that for all moneys received from the State, whether for capital or running expenditure, shares are to be issued to the State.

However, the question has arisen whether shares should also be issued to the State in respect of the operational cost of the pilot plant, which is solely regarded as a running ost and which can only, to a small extent, be covered by the sale of the product of this plant. It would seem more appropriate that such expenditure, which can mainly be regarded as research and running costs, should be financed in another way, for instance by an annual appropriation from the State Revenue Fund for which shares would not be issued. This matter has been discussed between officials of the corporation and the Treasury and the conclusion was reached that expenditure for the running of the pilot plant, as well as for research and development purposes in connection with the commercial plant, could more appropriately be defrayed from moneys appropriated by Parliament for this purpose without shares being issued. This would also provide for a more direct control by Parliament over such expenditure.

*The acceptance of the above-mentioned basis makes it essential, however, that money which has already been received by the corporation and for which shares have been issued to the State, should be re-allocated in order to place this expenditure in respect of the pilot plant in its correct perspective. It has consequently been decided to accept the basis that the construction of the pilot plant in general be regarded as the acquisition of a capital asset, and that all moneys made available to the corporation up to 31 March 1975 should therefore be regarded as share capital. Moneys which were, or are being made available after 31 March 1975 for the completion and putting into operation of the pilot plant are being dealt with in the accounts in the same manner. All other moneys which have been, or are being made available to the corporation since 1 April 1975, whether these were intended for the operation of the pilot plant or for research and development costs in respect of a commercial plant, or for the general administration of the corporation, are regarded as running costs for which shares are not issued. In future, therefore, such moneys will be appropriated separately for this purpose by Parliament. In order to implement this new policy, it will, however, be necessary to supplement the existing section 5 of the Uranium Enrichment Act, 1970, by substituting a new subsection (4), as contained in clause 2 of the Bill, for the existing subsection (4).

In addition it is also necessary to insert an additional new section 5A as set out in clause 3 of the Bill, since funds which have already been approved under the existing Act with effect from 1 April 1975 to 31 March 1977, pursuant to the amended policy, are deemed to be funds which, besides being appropriated for share capital, will also be appropriated for current expenditure in respect of research and development, as well as administrative costs. These appropriations therefore serve to augment the funds which, to a small extent, will be obtained by the corporation from the sale of the product of the pilot plant.

Since it may also be expected that the institutions from which money is lent will insist that the State underwrite the repayments of the capital sum and the interest on such loans, which are raised by the corporation, the necessary provision is also being made in the Act now, through the insertion of a new section 7A, as embodied in clause 4 of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is the fourth Bill since 1970 dealing with the Uranium Enrichment Corporation and its work. The original Bill was introduced in 1970. There as an amendment in 1971 by way of the Finance Act, and a further amendment in 1974. This Bill is therefore the fourth Bill before the House in regard to an undertaking in this country that has not yet got beyond the pilot stage. It is quite clear that the difficulties or uncertainties in legislation that have arisen in connection with uranium enrichment are of course due to the fact that we are dealing with a new business which, to some extent, is unpredictable. It is therefore not unreasonable that, with growing experience and a growing realization of what is involved in this kind of development, changes should be made in the legislation. However, it is also clear from the attention and concern that comes through in this frequently revised legislation that we are dealing with something that is not only important from a strategic point of view, but is also going to be very important from a financial point of view. I would hesitate to predict a figure, but perhaps we can get some idea by looking at the costs of enrichment plants in other countries. Some of them, in the case of America for instance, run into sums as great as 2 000 million US dollars some 25 or 30 years ago. Having regard to inflation, the changing value of money and even allowing for the economy to be achieved in respect of the particular type of enrichment which is proposed to be conducted in South Africa, it is easy enough to predict that the eventual cost of a commercial enrichment plant is going to be a very large amount indeed. There is no question about that. It is going to be a figure that will stagger the imagination of many South African when it finally comes to be counted. In view of the kind of money that is involved, decisions and policies have to be determined not in isolation, but as part of a broad spectrum of energy policy in the country as a whole. We are not specifically spending any money tonight by approving this Bill, but we are looking at a structure of expenditure which threatens to involve a very large amount indeed. When we look at this kind of structure, it is right that we should at least stop for a few moments—without venturing into irrelevance so far as the Bill is concerned—to ask ourselves exactly what we are doing and how we are doing it.

I would suggest that it is time for South Africa to stop and take stock of its whole energy policy. Before we commit ourselves to one particular line of expenditure and another particular line of development—I have in mind, particularly, enrichment and the large sums of money it will involve—it is necessary that we take a look at our energy policy as a whole. That was, in fact, the recommendation of the Petrick Commission on the coal industry which tabled its report in Parliament not very long ago. Without taking up too much time of the House, I should like to read very briefly two extracts. The first is taken from a speech made by a United States Senator shortly after the Opec situation created an oil crisis. The Senator said the following of his own country—

Since that time the Americans have in fact established a national energy policy. It is a recommendation of the Petrick Commission that such a policy is urgently necessary also in South Africa. I quote from the Petrick Commission’s report—

I shall take it no further than that. Let me merely say to the hon. the Minister, who has quite considerable responsibilities in respect of energy, particularly nuclear energy, that with due respect to him it is hardly possible to conduct a sensible, logical and comprehensive debate on energy matters in this House when they are so fragmented between different departments. Let me give one example. When one discusses uranium enrichment, which is of strategic importance to this country’s power policy or energy policy and is therefore not only an export prospect, one has to take into account the development of nuclear power projects in this country. We have in mind for example, the Koeberg power station, tenders for which are to be adjudicated in the very near future. Koeberg power station falls under Escom, and Escom falls under the Minister of Economic Affairs. Therefore I am not entitled to talk to the hon. Minister for Mines about Koeberg, because it is not within his competence to discuss a nuclear power station, even though he, as Minister of Mines, is responsible for uranium enrichment. It is a ridiculous and absurd situation, and it will be impossible to conduct debates in this hon. House satisfactorily and adequately on energy policy for South Africa as long as this fragmentation exists in the conduct of energy policies by the Government.

Having said that, I want to come back to the Bill and to deal specifically with the financial provision that exists. The Bill before us tonight deals with three kinds of finance, essentially three kinds of money which will accrue to the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. The first kind of money is loan money. Provision is made for the Uranium Enrichment Corporation to borrow money from other sources. I believe that a good deal of that money will be borrowed from abroad. In time to come, the Uranium Enrichment Corporation will have to start concluding contracts for the sale of its products. A number of the countries which require enriched uranium, and have no uranium enrichment facilities of their own, are already being tied up in contracts for future years with the countries which are in a position now to supply enriched uranium. The time will come for South Africa also to commit itself to certain contracts, or to take advantage of certain long-term agreements with certain countries. This could possibly be done as part of a loan arrangement. If a foreign country were to lend South Africa a large amount of money to be employed for the development of this very costly project, it might in fact be repaid in due course by means of uranium enriched in this plant. This is the kind of project that one might have to have in view. However, the fact is that a new provision has been made for the Uranium Enrichment Corporation, a provision which did not exist before, namely that it may receive moneys by way of loans.

The second provision that has been made, which existed before but is being slightly altered, is that capital expenditure will be provided for by share issues. These share issues will, as before, be taken up by the Government. We have raised, in other debates on uranium enrichment in this House, the question as to whether, as in some other countries, a part of the share capital should not be issued and sold to other interested parties, and as to whether it is in fact necessary for the State to hold 100% of the shares in the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. If security is the concern, I want to point out that, in the United Kingdom for example, the State holds 51% of the shares in a similar type of enterprise in the related nuclear fuels enterprise, and is prepared to allow 49% of the shares to go into the hands of other companies, private enterprises participating in this kind of business. However, this is something that will have to be looked at again, because I think it is wrong that the State should carry the whole burden of financing something to which private enterprise, in future years, might in fact make a very valuable contribution.

Then there is the question of running expenses. These have now been separated in the way which appears in this Bill—in clause 3—in terms of which there will be an annual appropriation by this Parliament in order that the expenses, which the hon. the Minister has defined—I think he said it would be mainly concerned with the running of the pilot plant—will be classified as running expenses, as distinct from the building of the commercial plant, which will be classified as capital expenditure. This is a rational separation, but we are not happy about the second subsection of clause 3, which provides that any unexpended surplus in respect of the appropriated moneys, i.e. the moneys appropriated annually by Parliament for running expenses, shall at the end of any particular financial year of the corporation be carried forward to the succeeding financial year. The hon. the Minister will know that it is the financial practice of this House, as far as possible, that when it appropriates annual moneys for any Government department, and indeed, for other Government utilities or businesses, to require any excess of money unused at the end of the financial year to be returned, and that Parliament has then to be requested to provide a new sum of money to be employed in the ensuing financial year. The reason why this is done is simply because it is a good financial practice which enables Parliament to exercise a higher degree of control over the money which it votes every year. Sir, I think it is particularly important in the case of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation that we should be cautious about how we spend money, firstly because, as I have said, the amount of money can be very large over the years. Secondly, as the constant amendments to the Act have shown, we are dealing with a largely unpredictable type of business of which we have no long experience.

Thirdly, there is now introduced into this financial concept the idea that the Uranium Corporation may also raise loans. Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill do distinguish, rightly, between capital expenditure and running expenses, but I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in respect of loans, i.e. the first category of revenue, there will also be a distinction made between capital expenditure and running expenses. In other words, while money appropriated by Parliament is clearly defined into a capital expense account and a running expense account, what happens to loans acquired from elsewhere? Will this also be kept in two separate accounts? Will loan money be used purely for capital expenditure, or will it be used purely for running expenses, and if it is not, what will the allocation be? If in fact the loan moneys are to be used, in whole or in part, for running expenses, what about accountability to Parliament? Parliament is now, after all, providing a certain amount of money each year for running expenses of the corporation. The corporation is also to borrow money abroad or from other sources. If this borrowed money, the loan money, is in fact going to be used for running expenses, and the corporation is also obtaining running expenses from Parliament, then surely it is important for Parliament to know what portion of loan money is being applied to running expenses, and it is surely also important that if loan money is used for that purpose, that money should be applied first before Parliament is approached for money for running expenses at all. In fact, I think that is the meaning of the Bill. It says, in the new section 5A, that running expenses of the corporation which cannot be defrayed out of the funds of the corporation at its disposal to cover those expenses shall be defrayed from moneys appropriated by Parliament. In other words, Parliament is only responsible for running expenses to the extent that the corporation is not able to provide for running expenses from other sources. Section 5(5) of the Act, which is now being deleted by the Bill, also provided that the assets of the corporation, in the form of moneys, rights, cessions, whatever the source, capital equipment and so forth, should be deemed to be appropriated by Parliament as part of the share capital. Parliament has to provide share capital of a certain amount and under the original Act, as amended by the Finance Bill of 1971, any assets in the hands of the corporation could be deemed to be part of the share capital, in respect of those moneys which Parliament had to appropriate to provide share capital. That subsection is now being deleted, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister, in view of the deletion of section 5(5), what now happens to the other assets which may still be on hand. Have these other assets all been transferred to the share capital or, if not, what is going to happen to them? Presumably they have been absorbed into the share capital, but I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to that.

I have referred to our objection to the right of the corporation to retain a surplus of moneys, unspent, in respect of the appropriation made by Parliament for running expenses. I think it is only right that Parliament should be kept more closely informed, and that the money should be returned and revolted each year. The hon. the Minister himself, when he introduced the Bill, said that the system he hoped to introduce was one “which would give Parliament more direct control”. I believe that if the hon. the Minister wants such direct control, this is precisely what he should do.

I do not think I need say any more, except that we welcome the steady improvement in conditions for the running of this Uranium Enrichment Corporation. It is necessary that we should learn by experience, and that we should prepare not only for technical improvements, but also, financially, for the very high commitments which this corporation will be called upon to meet. In all these respects we support the Government, although we believe that there are certain points which need clarification, and at this early stage we cannot support the idea that the corporation be given carte blanche on its annual running expenses. We should like to see any surplus money returned at the end of a financial year, the more particularly because of the loan implications which have now been introduced. These unused running expenses should be returned to Parliament and Parliament should maintain control by being asked to vote new moneys each year in accordance with the requisitions made by the corporation and justified by the hon. the Minister before this House. When this corporation becomes profit making, when it has a board which is actually looking after an economically run operation where costs will, in fact, be met out of profits, then we can reconsider the matter. However, here we still have a very young, untried and inexperienced industry which has not yet begun to produce for profit and I do not believe it should be let off the hook yet. I believe it must carry on from year to year and that Parliament must maintain a very close surveillance over the growth and activities of this corporation during the early years. For that reason we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill. During the Committee Stage we shall express our reservations in respect of clause 3(1), which we believe is premature and not called for at this stage of the development of the corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to express a few thoughts. In the first place, in uranium we are dealing with a source of energy. The old classical concept which created factors which would be responsible for industrial growth, actually had three components. They were labour, capital and land. This old classical concept is also mentioned on page 190 of the Petrick report. In recent times, as a result of the drying up of energy resources and as a result of financial implications and the higher price which is being charged for sources of energy such as oil, a new component has come to the fore in connection with the decisive factors which influence growth in a determining, decisive way. Whereas the old classical concept also included energy within the capital component, I think the time has come for us to have to accept a new evaluation of energy as a decisive factor in the evaluation of growth and which factors will determine growth in the future. As I said, uranium is a source of energy and it is going to play an even greater role as a source of energy in the future. We know that our coal resources are not inexhaustible, we know that oil resources in the world are not inexhaustible and that South Africa is endowed with fairly rich deposits of uranium. We are proud of the achievements which have been made in the sphere of uranium enrichment. We are proud of the fact that we can enrich uranium at a lower cost and according to a different method to the rest of the world.

Since uranium is one of our sources of energy, I just want to express a single thought in this connection. I think that we in South Africa have done far too little in connection with a comprehensive inquiry into the correlation, the co-operation, the alliance which may exist between all the sources of energy which we have at our disposal in South Africa. When I refer to sources of energy, I specifically want to mention that we have uranium, as well as the wind, the sun, the tides, coal, etc.

Water-power.

We also have water-power. I can mention even more. They are all sources of energy, and I think that there is really a need for launching a comprehensive scientific inquiry into the value of each of the sources of energy separately or in combination, one with the other, or by the merging of the value of one with that of another. I think we will be amazed at the results which will be obtained from an inquiry like this. We shall be amazed at the amount of energy which is stored in South Africa and may be made available by its correct application in a scientific manner and on the correct basis. We shall be amazed at how much energy will be available to us in South Africa in future when all our organic sources have been depleted.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will support the legislation. We share the reservations which have been expressed by the hon. member for Von Brandis in regard to clause 3 of the Bill. Obviously our country at the moment has two primary sources of energy, of which the most important at this point of time is coal. Potentially, the other is uranium, which is basically produced in this country as a by-product in the gold mines. I hope the hon. the Minister will remember in relation to the legislation which went before this. Obviously, when one comes to deal with the question of uranium enrichment, the sums of money become very large, as the hon. member for Von Brandis pointed out. I hope, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will give us the assurance that he will provide more information rather than less information to this House. Basically, that is what runs through this piece of legislation; it deals with loans, with subscriptions for shares and with the running expenses of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we shall support this legislation, but we share the reservations of the hon. member for Von Brandis, particularly in regard to clause 3.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has the support of all sides. This is a Bill which deals with a very important matter. It deals with large amounts involved in a new industry, and I want to remind this House of the fact that the Uranium Enrichment Corporation is not only a new industry, but also an enormous one. In the years which lie ahead, literally milliards of rand will be involved in this. The first remark which the hon. member for Von Brandis made—and the hon. member for Carletonville also referred to this—was that there were so many sources of energy that one might eventually have interests spread over various departments. For example, reference was made to the fact that the one source of energy generation fell under the Minister of Economic Affairs, while the Minister of Mines had to give his attention to uranium enrichment, etc. The fact of the matter is, Sir, that the Government is very aware of this. It is not a case of unco-ordinated development. There is a Cabinet committee in which the Ministers concerned deliberate over this development, and there is also an energy policy committee in which the departments concerned and the experts are brought together so as to ensure proper co-ordination between the various components. Consequently I am of the opinion that there is no reason for concern that there may be interests which will drift away from one another as far as the generation energy is concerned. The whole object is to co-ordinate this, and this is being done.

The hon. member for Von Brandis expressed misgivings with regard to two matters. In the first place he suggested that a balance which was available as a surplus at the end of a year, should be carried forward rather than returned. Although this body is not truly a government department, I want to point out that in the case of government departments, it is the practice to return any surplus to the Treasury and to make a new appropriation in the succeeding year. Then we also have the example of a body such as the National Institute for Metallurgy, in respect of which the Treasury has allowed this practice in the past. In a case such as this it is felt that as long as the surplus is taken into account as regards the following year’s expenditure, i.e. taken into account by the applicant, in this case the corporation, and by the Treasury on the other hand, it is, in fact, purely a technical problem. I want to give the hon. member the assurance once again that the necessary consultation does take place, and that any surplus amount from the previous year is taken into account in appropriating funds for the succeeding year.

The hon. member also touched on the question of the utilization of loan capital. It is the intention to run this commercial enrichment plant on business lines, on the basis that loan capital, as well as fixed capital, will be utilized so as to effect total financing, and that running expenses will eventually be covered from production. Care will therefore have to be exercised that the utilization of capital will be such that capital will not be utilized unnecessarily for running expenses. This is the business aspect of the matter. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that this will also be the basis on which it will be run. It would be foolish if the body concerned were to borrow money and were to continue utilizing such loan capital for running expenses without the yield from production being utilized. If this were to happen, this corporation, financially, would not be able to exist In other words, it is an undertaking which will be run like an ordinary business, and I do not think we need have much concern in this regard. I also think it may be somewhat presumptuous at this stage for either the hon. member or the Minister to doubt the sound business management which there will be. However, it remains the responsibility of the Minister to see to this and it also remains the responsibility of this House to take notice of reports in this regard. I think the hon. member should be satisfied if I tell him that in terms of the agreement we have between the Treasury and the Uranium Enrichment Corporation, this will be within the ambit of sound business procedure. Perhaps it will be well for me to quote from the memorandum of the Uranium Enrichment Corporation. I do not think it will be amiss of me to read from this since it will allow the hon. member to see how this will be run. The document reads as follows—

This is what I told the hon. member a moment ago. I quote further—

I think that this provides an explanation as regards expenditure in the future. I hope I have succeeded in setting the hon. member’s mind at rest that practices which may cause concern will not be followed.

As far as the hon. member for Johannesburg North is concerned, his contribution was more or less in the vein in which the other hon. members spoke and therefore I am of the opinion that I have replied to matters which were raised by hon. members.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have already stated during the Second Reading debate, we object to the amendment in clause 3. I therefore move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I think I know what the hon. member’s misgivings are. However, I do not think he need harbour any misgivings. I do not think we should argue about this. I do not take it amiss of him for being concerned about this and differing with me, but unfortunately I shall not be able to make this concession.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The independence of the Transkei will have certain effects as far as the implementation of the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned. The position will be as follows—

1. (1) From the date on which the Transkei becomes independent the Act will no longer apply there.
2. (2) Employers covered by the definition of employer in in section 4 will be excluded, and they and their employees will cease to be liable for contributions.
3. (3) In terms of section 41(1)(h) of the Act, persons outside the Republic are not entitled to benefits and from the date on which the Transkei becomes independent, no benefits can be paid there.
4. (4) Employees recruited in the Transkei on a contractual basis for service in the Republic who have to return to their country on conclusion of their period of service will, as in the case of citizens of all foreign countries, be excluded from the definition of contributor in terms of section 2(2)(a).
5. (5) Inhabitants of the Transkei who are not working in the Republic under contract and who do not have to be repatriated on the conclusion of their period of service, will be contributors unless they are otherwise from the definition of “contributor”, just as in the case of all other persons in the Republic.
6. (6) In terms of a notice published under section 2(5) of the Act, all Bantu not born in the Republic are excluded as contributors.

The question has occurred as to what obligation there must be towards contributors resident in the Transkei with regard to ordinary unemployment benefits, maternity benefits and illness allowances when the Transkei becomes independent, and what steps must be taken. As hon. members know, benefits from an unemployment insurance fund serve as a temporary source of income to assist the worker until he is again able to find employment. With a view to a gradual period of transition, the Government felt that the status quo should be maintained for a period in order to prevent disruption and dissatisfaction in respect of workers who had been contributors and built up a credit before the date of independence. During the transitionary period, the Transkeian Government may decide what its own wishes are in regard to the establishment of an unemployment insurance for its territory.

Certain proposals relating to the implementation of the Unemployment Insurance Act after the date of independence were submitted as long ago as last year to the working committee nominated to undertake the necessary preparations for the independence of the Transkei. These proposals were recently accepted by the Transkeian Cabinet.

The proposals are embodied in the Bill at present before the House. I now take pleasure in providing hon. members with details of the envisaged amendments.

Clause 1:

This clause provides for the insertion into the Act of a new section 64A which will protect certain persons who were entitled to benefits and allowances before the independence of the Transkei.

Subsection (1):

Persons who were drawing benefits or were entitled to receive benefits will continue to receive such benefits in the normal way after independence, until the benefits are terminated for one reason or another in the ordinary course of events. Consequently, no changes come into effect until such time as the person has received all the benefits to which he was entitled with regard to the application in question, whether this be before or after independence. Payments in respect of any approved applications or applications which could be approved before independence, are therefore continued after independence.

Subsections (2) and (3):

Any person who was a contributor before the independence of the Transkei, who has built up the necessary credits and qualifies for benefits, may still receive such benefits for a period of three years after independence.

As far as ordinary benefits are concerned, a person can still qualify throughout the period of three years, since the proposed section 64A(3) provides that service in the Transkei during the three years is regarded as “otherwise employed”—viz., not as a “contributor”—because from the date of independence people in the Transkei no longer contribute to the fund. Whereas credits may therefore no longer be built up, such persons may qualify for benefits in regard to credits already built up before the date of independence.

As far as illness allowances and maternity benefits are concerned, persons will no longer be able to qualify after a certain period, depending on the date of inception of the disease or the expected date of confinement, since the Act provides that persons have to have been contributors employed for certain specific periods to qualify for such benefits. These provisions also apply to persons of the Republic who have ceased to work as contributors for one reason or another.

Subsection (4):

This subsection provides that the provisions of the Act relating to the keeping of wage records and contributors’ record cards will still apply in the Transkei after the date of independence. This is essential, so as to be able to determine, when he is unemployed, what a worker’s earnings had been. The worker will also have to be in possession of his contributor’s record card when he applies for benefits.

Subsection (5):

The envisaged amendment provides that applications for benefits will be dealt with by the claims officers at East London and Durban. However, such applications will not be considered if they are not submitted before or on the date on which the period of three years expires.

Dependants’ allowances are not affected. Such applications may still be submitted after the period of three years. This is also the position in the Republic in respect of foreign citizens. Their dependants may apply irrespective of where they live. However, the qualifications for this are that applications must be made within three years after the date of death of the contributor and that proof must be furnished that the deceased had worked as a contributor for 13 weeks in the three years immediately preceding his death.

Those are the amendments in broad detail, and I trust that they will meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that one should talk unless it is essential to do so. Therefore, I shall say what I want to say to this House in a few sentences. It would appear to us that here the Government is putting the cart before the horse, because the Transkei has not yet become independent and yet we have a whole series of measures aimed at the eventual independence of the Transkei. Mr. Speaker, you will not allow me to discuss the merits of independence. As far as this Bill is concerned, I must therefore accept it as an accomplished fact. It is necessary, of course, for certain adjustments to be made when an area such as the Transkei becomes independent. What this Bill seeks to do, is set out in the long title, as follows—

One naturally has to accept this in principle. Therefore we agree to this and shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this Bill are straightforward and very clear. We shall support the Bill at the Second Reading. I have two questions I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. Obviously, we shall come back to these in the Committee Stage, but I mention them here in order to obtain some information. In the proposed new section 64A(4) one reads—

The question that obviously arises is how this is to be enforced once the Transkei has become independent. How does one have any jurisdiction over any employer or employee who happens to be in the Transkei? Whilst our legislation may stipulate that the employer shall do this and that, I fail to understand how it is possible for the Republic in its legislation to enforce regulations upon employers living in an independent country.

That is the one problem. The other concerns the period of three years laid down in the Bill. One wonders if some people are not going to be penalized and whether three years is sufficient time for this particular provision to operate. Is this enough time, or could it be extended should this be necessary? My own guess is that it will be necessary to extend the period. I hope the hon. the Minister will reassure us that no one will be penalized as a result of the fact that, after three years, this provision ceases to be.

Having put those two questions, let me say that we support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support of this Bill. The question of the hon. member for Pinelands is a technical one. I do not believe he expects us to differ on it. The hon. member asked whether a period of three years was in fact sufficient time. We must have regard to the fact that this concerns unemployment insurance. It is a type of insurance which applies over a short period only. In this respect a period of three years is sufficient. Any country ought to be able to make provision itself for its people in that period. Apart from that, consultations were held in this regard. We came to the conclusion that three years were not only long enough, but also exceptionally generous. I do not want to compare South Africa to other countries, but the hon. member may well look at what has happened over the past 25 years with this type of legislation in other countries. I think the Transkei may be very grateful for the fact that we are really going out of our way to end matters like this and hand them over to the Government there to deal with at its discretion. I think that a period of three years in which someone has the opportunity to make use of privileges in terms of an Act passed by us, is very generous. I believe that the people of the Transkei will be the first to admit this and that they will be very grateful for this. The hon. member is welcome to raise this matter once again during the Committee Stage, but I do not believe that it is necessary for him to do so. I want to assure him that this, measured by any norm, is an extremely fair proposal.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill, of which I am now moving the Second Reading, is of a comprehensive nature and may also seem at first glance to be a complicated measure. Before I say any more about its principles, I think it would be appropriate to make a few general observations.

The Liquor Act has been on the Statute Book since 1928, and is generally known as the Tielman Roos Act. Since then it has been amended on 35 different occasions—which is sufficient to demonstrate that we are dealing here not only with a liquid product, but also with a relatively fluid law.

Initially amendments to the Act were not required to any considerable extent, but since 1961 changes have already been effected by way of 21 different measures—a clear demonstration that the Government, as a result of rapidly changing requirements in a rapidly changing world, is keeping abreast with and adapting to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Whether all the changes which have been effected since 1928 may be described as improvements, is not for me to say. In the case of the product of the vine there are the so-called vintage years, and perhaps at a later stage in our history it may also be said that this was the position with our liquor legislation.

When one is dealing with liquor legislation, it is truly a case of quot homines tot sententiae, and only time will tell to what extent our legislation has succeeded in bringing about and maintaining the orderly distribution of liquor.

The Bill was published in advance in the Gazette for perusal and comment, but before doing so my department held extensive talks with the KWV, the Kaapse Wyninstituut, the Federated Hotel Associations and other bodies, including representatives of the Association of Law Societies. Consequently I am able to state here that, apart from possible minor points of difference, the measure is acceptable to the producers, to the trade in its various ramifications, as well as to the attorneys’ profession in so far as its functions are concerned.

I said at the outset that this Bill was of a comprehensive nature. It consists of 151 clauses, and is the bulkiest Liquor Amendment Bill that has ever been published. The Amendment Bill of 1963 (Act No. 88 of 1963), had 116 clauses, but in my opinion it contained far more contentious principles than the present measure. From this it may be deduced that, in my opinion, the Bill before this House in essence contains no controversial provisions. Naturally it is not expedient to give a detailed elucidation of each principle in the Bill in this Second Reading speech. I think we may, in so far as it may be necessary, discuss them in greater detail during the Committee Stage.

However, the Bill contains a number of central principles which in my opinion may be regarded as being the most important, and I intend to explain these principles briefly. I want to point out that in the most cases, owing to the nature of its composition, any, even slight, amendments of the Liquor Act necessitate consequential amendments. This in itself is to a great extent caused by the voluminous nature of the measure. The first point I should like to emphasize is that this measure should be seen as the prelude to the final consolidation of the 1928 Act, as amended on numerous occasions. This is something which has repeatedly been envisaged in the past and which, as a result of this comprehensive measure has become even more real and pressing.

The second point I want to mention is that we are now bringing the 1928 measure into conformity with decimalization and metrication. At the same time we are raising licence and application fees, but I want to emphasize that the last time any change was made to the prescribed fees, which are now being raised, was in 1963. It is quite likely, too, that it will not be possible for the increase to come into effect before at least 12 to 18 months have elapsed, by which time we hope that inflation will be a tiling of the past. Here and there we are effecting improvements to the language, but this is a matter which will receive more attention when the measure is consolidated. The most important change which is being proposed in the Bill is an amendment of the licensing system. Hon. members will recall that at the time each magisterial district initially had a liquor licensing board, which consisted of the magistrate of the district and four members drawn from the private sector. In December of every year each council met to consider applications for the renewal of liquor licences, as well as applications for new liquor licences. During the course of the year it was also possible to hold interim and special meetings. Hon. members are probably aware of all the criticism that has been levelled at this system.

In 1956 the district boards were abolished and replaced by regional boards, each consisting of three magistrates. Each region consisted—and still consists—of at least one magisterial district. In the entire Republic there are at present 54 such boards. In 1961 the restrictions on the sale of liquor to Bantu were lifted, and the National Liquor Board was established. One of the principal functions entrusted to that body by Act No. 22 of 1961 was the consideration of applications—so-called section 100bis applications—for the provision of liquor to Bantu. In 1962 provision was also made for the section 100sex applications and the consideration of such applications was entrusted to the National Liquor Board. In 1963 the Liquor Act was drastically amended to provide, inter alia, for the classification of hotels, a function which was also allocated to the Liquor Board.

As far as applications for new liquor licences are concerned, the 1963 legislation provides that such applications—after they had been heard by the local board—had to be referred to the National Liquor Board for consideration and the making of recommendations to the Minister of Justice. Other functions were then and subsequently, too, entrusted by law to the National Liquor Board and today this body is generally accepted as the body which, subject to ministerial supervision, exercises control over licensed liquor distribution in the Republic. It is probably not necessary for me to state here that the National Liquor Board has, in the fulfilling of its functions, withstood the test of time. The present main function of the 54 local liquor licensing boards is to consider annual applications for the renewal of liquor licences and to hear evidence in regard to application for new liquor licences. The organized liquor trade, and particularly the hotel industry has been pleading for many years for the abolition of this process of annual renewal of liquor licences. Apart from the costs involved, so it is alleged, there is no need for a renewal from year to year. Control measures exist, and others may be introduced in so far as these may be necessary to exercise proper control over licensed premises and the distribution of liquor.

Very careful consideration has been given to this matter and my department and I, as well as the Police, are satisfied that we can do away with the existing system of the annual renewal of liquor licences. In parentheses I want to say that the same principle applies to the annual renewal of so-called section 100bis and 100sex authorizations which are at present renewed departmentally. Because the annual consideration of applications for the renewal of liquor licences falls away, the most important function of local liquor licensing boards falls away.

Consequently it is being contemplated in the Bill to abolish local liquor licensing boards. Naturally this results in many consequent amendments because all references to renewals and the functions of local licensing boards have to be deleted. In accordance with the new system for which provision is being made in the Bill, a liquor licence will continue to exist after it has originally been granted until it is cancelled by the competent authority, or until it is abandoned by the licensee or, in the opinion of the competent authority, business is no longer being transacted in terms of it. Particulars of all liquor licensed businesses and other lawful liquor distribution points will be computerized and the department will send each licensee a notification annually by 30 September demanding from him payment of the prescribed licence fee for the ensuing year.

It is not possible for me, in the short time at my disposal, to furnish you with the details. However, the Bill makes detailed provision in this regard.

As far as applications for new liquor licences are concerned, apart from temporary and late hours occasional licences, it is being contemplated that such applications will be heard in public by the National Liquor Board. Incidentally, the same applies to new section 100bis and 100sex applications.

It is the object that the Liquor Board will hold an annual meeting every year in respect of each province for the purpose of hearing such applications.

Provision is for the most part being made for objections, review, appeal, special and interim meetings, etc., as this exists at present in the case of local liquor licensing boards. In this regard I am referring in particular to clause 12 which inserts an entire new chapter III in the Act to deal with matters of this nature.

I think it is not inappropriate, at this stage, to express the gratitude of the Government and myself for the major task which local liquor licensing boards have been performing since 1956. It is not necessary for me to say that our liquor legislation is extremely complicated. I therefore have great appreciation for the task which those magistrates who are members of liquor licensing boards are performing in this regard; particularly since it is work of a specialized and for the most part complicated nature.

A second principle in the Bill which comes up for discussion deals with the provision of liquor on election days. I do not think it is necessary to go into detail about the provisions relating to election days for the House of Assembly or the Provincial Council or the Coloured Persons Representative Council or the Bantu areas. Those matters, as far as the Liquor Act is concerned, are now being more clearly outlined in the Bill.

Apart from the provisions of the Liquor Act in this regard, section 181 of the Electoral Act, 1946, provides as follows—

1. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, no person shall on any polling day fixed under this Act sell intoxicating liquor in any division in which a poll is being taken or at any place which—
   1. (a) in the case of a general election held in pursuance of a dissolution of the House of Assembly or a provincial council is not more than 20 miles; or
   2. (b) in the case of any other election if not more than 5 miles,

by the shortest practicable public road from any polling station at which any vote in connection with that election may be recorded.

1. (2) Any person who opens or permits to be open any premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor or sells such liquor in contravention of this section shall be liable on conviction to the same penalties …
2. (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the sale of intoxicating liquor under a wholesale licence to a ship …

Section 79 of the Constitution and Elections Amendment Act 1973, repeals section 181 of the Electoral Act of 1946. However, the repeal has not yet been put into effect, pending a decision on the question of whether the provisions of the Liquor Act in regard to the sale and provision of liquor on election days should be adapted, and if so, in which respect.

The repeal of the said provision in the Electoral Act of 1946 took place by way of a majority decision on the recommendation of a Select Committee. In this regard I should like to refer to the discussions during the Committee Stage of the relevant measure as reported in columns 8968 to 8974 of the debates of this House on 12 June 1973.

The provisions of section 181 of the 1946 Electoral Act have now been included in this Bill, and you will find them in clause 147 (f).

Briefly, what it amounts to is that the position in so far as liquor sales on election days will remain as it is at present This means that the status quo will be maintained regardless of the repeal of the relevant section in the Electoral Act of 1946.

I want to say at once that this matter received particular consideration from me. I think it would be foolish to effect a change. I am completely convinced that the situation, as it is at present, does not prejudice anyone in any way whatsoever. The organized liquor trade did not express themselves opposed to the provision in the Bill. On the contrary. We received no representations in this regard whatsoever. My proposal, as reflected in this Bill, is therefore that the status quo be maintained and reaffirmed.

†I wish to say something about the proposed amendment of section 100sex. I refer to clause 88 of the Bill. At present authority for the sale of liquor, on-consumption and off-consumption, may be granted to an association of Coloured or Asian persons having at least 20 shareholders and in which no single shareholder holds more than 20% of the issued shares or contributed more than 20% of the association’s capital. In addition no person may have a financial interest in more than one such distribution point. However, there is an exception in the case of the Coloured Development Corporation.

After consultation with the departments concerned and with the CDC, it has been decided to delete these restrictions. Extensive provision was made in 1969 to deal with the case of a shareholder in a section 100sex authority who permanently departs from the Republic. I refer to section 100sex(2B) of the Act. This provision is considered to be no longer necessary and is being deleted. Section 94 of the Act prohibits the supply of liquor to Bantu except under circumstances set out therein. This provision is really a relic from the days of almost total prohibition as far as Bantu are concerned and is no longer considered necessary. It is accordingly deleted by clause 84.

Section 74 of the principal Act provides that before a club liquor licence can be granted, the authority considering the application must be satisfied inter alia that the establishment is a bona fide club. There is no definition in the Act of what a club is and it is really a matter which must be considered with due regard to, amongst others, certain requirements specified in subsection (2) of section 74. Inter alia, it is specified that a club must have at least 35 members and ordinary members must pay an annual subscription of at least R6. The Liquor Board investigated the question of clubs and came to the conclusion that the minimum number of ordinary club members should be at least 50 and that the annual subscription should be increased to at least R12 per annum. Effect is being given hereto in clause 60 of the Bill. The Liquor Board recognized, however, that in some rural areas there may be a need for licensed club facilities at industrial undertakings such as power stations, but where the 50 ordinary membership requirement will be difficult or impossible to meet. In such cases it is proposed that a licence can be issued if the club has only 35 ordinary members. I trust that these amendments will eliminate applications by institutions which cannot really claim to be bona fide clubs.

A liquor licence, except a temporary licence, can only be granted in respect of fixed premises. The Bill contains an innovation in this respect. I refer to clause 147(y) under which it will become possible to grant a wine and malt licence in respect of a boat which is lawfully operated on any lake, lagoon, dam or river. I can foresee that in the not too distant future pleasure boats will operate on our bigger dams. As in the case of all wine and malt licences, it will be necessary to make provision for the service of food on such boats. It is, however, not intended to make the provision of full meals compulsory. Clause 51 has reference in this connection. Provision for light meals will be made in conditions which will be applicable.

At present hotels may be authorized to close for certain periods—the out-of-season periods—of the year. This principle is being extended to all-on-consumption licensed premises. Provision is also made for keeping open part of any licensed premises in cases where a material portion thereof is destroyed or becomes unfit for the proper carrying on of the business. Clause 67 has reference. Section 112 of the Act limits an hotelkeeper’s liability in respect of the property of a lodger on the premises, to a maximum of R40. There are certain exceptions to this restriction which are set out in subsection (1) of the section. The amendment proposed in clause 100 will increase the extent of liability from R40 to R100. Motivation is hardly necessary. Suffice it to say that the limit of R40 dates back to at least 1928 and that the hotel industry does not object to the proposed amendment.

As was done in 1962 and again in 1974, another opportunity is being given to holders of wholesale liquor licences to apply for conversion to bottle liquor licences. The relevant provision is to be found in clause 38. This will probably be the last opportunity for a long time to come, for this type of application.

Last year Parliament made it an offence to introduce, possess or consume liquor in any portion of a sportsground to which members of the public are admitted on payment of an admission fee. I undertook then in this House and also in the Other Place to give this particular provision further thought and consideration. It is now proposed to amend section 166(hA) as indicated in clause 139(f) of the Bill. I trust that this amendment will obviate the problems previously raised by hon. members.

Until now sportsground and theatre liquor licences have been grouped together in the Act as one class of licence. It is not necessary for me to say that this is really an impracticable situation. Separate provision is now being made for the two classes of licences as will be observed from, inter alia, clauses 7(b) and (c) and clause 55. As regards the proviso to the proposed new section 71quat—see clause 55—I want to say that it has been inserted with the specific purpose of being able to deal with a practice which has grown up over many years at the Milner Park Show Grounds and which, according to the department’s view and that of the show ground’s legal representative, will not fall within the ambit of the special condition prescribed in the proposed section 71quat.

By clause 99 of the Bill it is proposed to extend the present limitation of the time for the recovery of retail liquor debts, from three to four months. I have agreed to this extension after careful consideration of the retail trade’s representations to me. I do not think this concession can lead to any abuse.

In view of the additional functions which it is proposed under the Bill to entrust to the National Liquor Board I have agreed to the addition of a new subsection (10) to the existing section 118bis of the Act. I am referring to clause 109(b) of the Bill which authorizes the Board under certain circumstances to co-opt a person to assist it in the hearing of matters before it. This provision has been inserted at the suggestion of the Liquor Committee of the Association of Law Societies and has the support of the trade.

Another innovation introduced at the request of the lawyers, and fully supported by the trade, will be found in the proposed new section 173(2)—clause 145. Provision is now being made for condonation, under certain circumstances, of certain formal or technical errors or omissions in applications submitted under the Liquor Act.

The existing penalty clauses are numerous and involved. In order to simplify matters clause 140 now prescribes maximum penalties in a very much simplified, understandable manner. I think the amendment will be welcomed by everybody—from accused to legal representative to judicial officer. I wish to say something about the provisions of section 12(4) of the Liquor Act which provides as follows—

This additional fee is commonly called an impost and as far as we are able to establish, is—or I must rather say was—intended to eliminate speculation with bottle store licences. Imposts have been imposed by way of proclamation in respect of a number of urban areas of which I only want to mention a few by way of illustration. In 1935 an impost of R10 000 was proclaimed in respect of Nigel while in the same year the figure was fixed at R5 000 for Germiston. In 1939 Springs, Brakpan and Pretoria were “imposted” to the extent of R10 000 while the figure for Bellville, Goodwood, Parow and Durbanville was fixed at R5 000. An impost of R2 000 applies to Herbertsdale and one of R5 000 to Great Brak River while the figure for the municipal area of Prince Albert is R500. In respect of Sandton, Randburg, Kempton Park, Verwoerdburg and Sasolburg an impost of R10 000 was proclaimed in 1971.

By all accounts bottle store licences are very valuable assets and the impost provision has done nothing to minimize speculation with new bottle store licences.

According to reliable information goodwill value in respect of certain existing bottle store licences, particularly in certain urban areas, has risen to astronomical figures. We also have it on good authority that bottle liquor licences are disposed of, even before a single bottle of liquor has been sold, at prices which range between R60 000 and R150 000. The State finds itself in the position that it can give a bottle liquor licence to a particular individual person who finds himself in possession of a piece of paper often immediately worth tens of thousands of rand. This is a completely undesirable state of affairs which has been receiving consideration for many years.

The Department of Justice has come up with a scheme which, on the face of it, has much to commend itself. This scheme was provided for in the draft Bill which was published for general information and comment. Briefly it amounts to this: The State would share in the price paid for goodwill if a bottle liquor licence is alienated within five years from the date of grant on a sliding percentage scale. As I have said, this scheme has much to commend itself, and I think I am correct if I say it has all-round approval of the principle involved. From the comments we received, however, it is clear that the details of the scheme will have to be looked into again as there are a number of problems which can arise there from.

In view of what I have said, I have decided not to proceed at this stage with the amendment proposed in the draft Bill. I intend referring the matter to the National Liquor Board for consideration in conjunction with interested parties. As an interim measure the existing impost proclamations will be reviewed, and the question whether there are not other areas which should also be “imposted” will be investigated.

The supply of liquor by certain restaurants which are not licensed for the sale of liquor and whose premises and business operations do therefore not come under the provisions of the Liquor Act, is causing concern. It appears that at least at certain of these places, it has become the custom to supply liquor—usually wine, but often also spirits or beer—to customers under the pretext that it is given free of charge merely as a gesture of goodwill. The charge for the liquor is not reflected in the bill but, so I am informed, is hidden in the price of the meal. Restaurants who wish to supply liquor to their clients, must apply for and obtain liquor licences so that proper control can be exercised.

I have been informed that the existing provisions in the Liquor Act relating to dealing in liquor without a licence, are inadequate to meet the problem. I have therefore decided to insert the necessary provision in that part of the Act which deals with evidence and in which a number of presumptions already exist to make the task of the prosecution less onerous in proving certain Liquor Act contraventions. The relevant amendment will be found in clause 128 of the Bill.

*As I said at the outset, it is unpractical to explain the provisions of this measure clause by clause. I have mentioned to you what I consider to be the most important provisions of the measure. At this stage I want to content myself with saying that the Bill contains very sound principles—and this is not only my view, but also the feeling in general of those people who are most closely involved in the provisions of the Liquor Act.

If the Bill should become law, there are of course many administrative actions which will have to be carried out, particularly in so far as the preparation for the introduction of the altered licensing procedure is concerned. It will definitely not be possible to finalize these matters during the present year, and I think a reasonable estimate would be towards the second half of 1977 at the earliest.

Mr. Speaker, as is traditional with this side of the House, where a matter concerns the supply of liquor, the question is regarded as a matter of conscience and is therefore subject to a free vote on this side of the House. As there are members who consider that this Bill in fact extends the supply of liquor—I must say that this a contention with which I do not agree, but nevertheless it is held—this means that there will be a free vote in this regard and members on our side will be entitled to express their personal convictions in regard to that aspect of the Bill. [Interjections.] I have said that members are entitled to hold that view. If they get shot down later, then that is a matter for debate. That is the purpose of debate.

I must say that I become very suspicious when we have a little measure like this introduced with honey and syrup, which the hon. the Minister can assure the House—and he is correct—enjoys the support of the department, the support of the legal profession, the support of the Federated Hotel Association—this I know—and the support of the organized liquor trade. In fact, it seems to enjoy everyone’s support, and this makes me very, very suspicious indeed, because there is only one person left who has not expressed an opinion, and that is the consumer! If everybody else is happy, can the consumer be happy too? That is a matter which will perhaps come to light as we proceed with the Bill.

As the hon. the Minister pointed out, this simple little Bill, comprising 217 pages, with 151 clauses amending the 176 sections of the Act itself, does not leave much unchanged. If one has 151 amending clauses and only 176 sections to amend, it means that only 25 sections of the original Act are unchanged. This is virtually a rewrite of the Liquor Act.

I believe that the general effect of this Bill is that it introduces improvements. Nevertheless, I think it is necessary to place on record that something I warned this House about many years ago has come to pass, and that is that the total power, the total “baasskap” over liquor and the liquor trade in South Africa, has now been concentrated into the hands of the National Liquor Board, now to be called the Liquor Board.

Do you have any objection to it?

Yes, I have.

†It was not this hon. Minister, but his predecessor whom we warned about creating an empire. Some of us foresaw that this empire would seek to gather in all the strings so that the whole control, the “baasskap” over the liquor trade, would rest in one neat and compact body. The hon. the Minister himself has now become the chief licensing officer. Throughout the Bill it is the Minister who will take decisions, who will impose conditions, who will determine even down to what colour towels one will have and down to what the building will look like. To the smallest detail the Minister will take these decisions. He does not have the power to delegate that authority. In the granting of licences and the imposing of conditions, clause after clause states that it is the Minister who takes the decision. The recommendation comes from the Liquor Board, but the Minister, technically, has placed himself in the position of a licensing officer in many aspects of the control of liquor.

This is the Minister, Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for Justice, for our security and even for determining clemency in the case of death sentences. He is the person who, in his capacity as Minister of Justice, deals with matters vital to the State, to the safety of the State and to the people, and I believe that this Bill goes too far in adding to those onerous and responsible duties the task of a licensing officer. I believe that the Minister should be the court of appeal to whom persons can go, as applies in certain circumstances, and that there should be a body with a more judicial make-up than the existing Liquor Board to grant licences. That is why, in the past, it has always been judicial officers, magistrates, who have headed liquor licensing boards, both local boards and regional boards. This was done in order to bring in the judicial approach. Now the body which considers these matters is to be a body of officials and not a judicial body, and the person who is to make the decisions is the Minister. I believe it would be much sounder, whilst we are rewriting this Act to such an extent, to introduce into the body which has to hear applications and make decisions, a greater judicial element. This can be done by making the chairman of the Liquor Board a judge or a person with judicial experience. The Minister can then hear appeals while the administration, from the official side, can deal with administrative matters.

You want the rule of law again.

Mr. Speaker, what I do not want is jobs for pals and the possibility of suspicion. When you hear that sort of interjection, it makes you wonder what that hon. member is scared of. What is he scared of, bearing in mind that we are talking of a judicial approach to what is a judicial decision taken after guidance by the advice of the technical experts, the people whose job it is to find out, analyse and present the facts? I feel that there is too great a tendency for the same organization which has elicited the information and collected the facts, also to make the decision on those same issues with which it has itself become involved. I would like to see a greater separation taking place, so that the Minister has a smaller part to play in the specific task of taking detailed decisions. He should rather be the person to whom one can appeal for an impartial review. As this amending Bill reads now, there is no really effective appeal. The only appeal is an appeal against mala fides or an appeal against a point of law. There is no appeal to a court on fact or on merit. I accept that that is also the existing situation. The only appeal that can be made, once the Liquor Board has made a decision, is to the Minister, but when the Minister takes a decision there is no effective appeal.

I think this is a weakness which, whilst the Act is being amended by a Bill with such far-reaching consequences, should have been taken into account. In practice, of course, this has already become the position, because your local licensing boards, and lately your regional licensing boards, in fact only recommended to the National Liquor Board. In practice those recommendations were absolutely futile, because the decision was taken at the centre in Pretoria. The hon. the Minister will admit that in recent times those boards have ceased to even make recommendations. They have simply been a post office submitting and forwarding applications and information. They have not even bothered to put in recommendations, because the recommendations have not been the deciding factor.

They have put in recommendations.

Of recent times? My information is that they stopped making recommendations because the effective decisions were taken in Pretoria by the National Liquor Board. So what you are really doing is that you are eliminating a post office. I am not going to argue about the fact whether there were recommendations or not. The local magistrates have simply become a channel of communication. This Bill is therefore entrenching what is the de facto position. I do not believe that that makes it any better, because all power is still being centralized in a body in Pretoria. In effect that is what happened. It does not mean that that is the best way. I think that there should be a provision for some sort of advisory information-gathering source at local level to counteract the possibility of wrong information by a visiting inspector who is not aware of the local situation.

I now have an open hearing at that spot.

At the centre? Yes, that is an improvement. There are many improvements. I am not disputing the fact that there are improvements. I am saying that whilst these radical amendments are being made, I would like to have seen the matter being taken further to bring in the concept that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. This is particularly so in an issue where the hon. the Minister himself has said that a licence, granted as a simple piece of paper before you have sold a bottle of liquor, becomes worth tens of thousands of rands. The fact alone indicates how important it is that South Africa should know that it is not possible that that piece of paper gets given to someone by favour or by fortune. It makes it all the more important, and the hon. the Minister will agree, that there must be no possibility of suspicion in the granting of licences.

You are off-colour tonight.

No, my friend. I am trying to deal with reality in the knowledge of what has happened. The Government has been in power for so long that nepotism has been found in other fields.

Where?

A Government under which in other fields—it has not happened here and I have no cases to quote here—there have been examples of nepotism, of favouritism, of apparent bribery, of apparent departure from the standards of public honesty. Therefore it is more than ever important that, when a Government has been in power too long and because that sort of thing happens, as has happened in the Faros case, as has happened in the Agliotti case and with so many other things, that where Parliament deals with a grant which carries high financial value, every possible step must be taken to ensure that the procedure, that the method which is followed, is beyond any shadow of suspicion. That is all that I am trying to put to the hon. the Minister. A new procedure is going to be followed now, and all that I am asking is that it should be beyond any question. To do that, I have suggested a judicial element in the decision-making process.

Can you prove your allegation of nepotism?

Yes, I have quoted the Faros and Agliotti cases. In other areas where the Government has not prevented the abuse of power and authority …

Can you remember as far back as that?

There is another aspect I think the hon. the Minister should consider. Here I am referring to the tremendous powers he and the Liquor Board are taking to impose, alter, cancel, suspend, add, relax and/or restrict conditions on licences and trading. Although we are giving certainty to a licence holder—and I welcome the removal of the annual renewal—it is being replaced by an uncertainty which can be imposed at any time.

I do not want to go into all the relevant clauses of the Bill relating to the power to impose, change or suspend conditions. One is therefore giving permanence to a licence, but together with that permanency one is creating uncertainty as far as the conditions of operation are concerned.

In this field let me refer to the question of objections that may be made by any person—I think in August—against the renewal of a licence. Here again one is granting permanence and yet opening wide the door to unnecessary objections and requests for the cancellation of licences. I agree that there must be some procedure in terms of which a local authority or organization can indicate that a certain hostel, bar or bottle store is a menace and is creating a nuisance as far as the community is concerned. That machinery must be there, but I do not believe that the door must be left as wide open as in the case of the present provisions.

Upon representations being made, there will be an open inquiry.

This nevertheless means that any individual who is opposed in principle to the sale of liquor can come along and lodge an objection asking for the cancellation of an hotel licence. This has always been the case with a renewal, and it means that every applicant has to have an attorney or an advocate—someone to take his case—and this merely to deal with standard objections that come along year after year. I have nothing against attorneys; I believe we have to give them a little molly-coddling and protection and a little job reservation, but I do not think we need to be doing this. I think requests for the cancellation of a licence should be restricted to new grounds. In other words, if there are new circumstances that have arisen since a previous complaint or objection, these can be taken into account. However, where it is the same complaint by the same body on the same grounds, with no new circumstances pertaining, I do not believe the licensee should be put to all the expense of having to defend himself with all the procedural paraphernalia of a hearing, adjournment, renewed hearing, merely to hear a stereotype case based on complaints that are lodged year after year by well-meaning organizations who are opposed to any licence in principle.

Then we come to the restrictions and clause 61 with which I shall not deal in detail at this stage. However, there are pages and pages of restrictions. Surely, it is possible to simplify the provisions of a Bill like this. Why is it that when you deal with liquor, you see so many spooks that you have to write in 176 clauses to control it? I am quite sure that you do not have to have something like 20 pages of differing limitations and restrictions for every different type of licence, for each area and for every specific possibility. Surely, it should not be beyond the bounds of the wit of an able Minister who brings in such an amending Bill to streamline the provisions by saying that in a particular field, these are the outer limits and simply provide therefore. I can give an example.

In the principal Act there is a provision that a licensee or his wife may provide liquor to a member of his or her family living with him or her, but in order to add the words “employee or manager” the whole provision has been rewritten and a simple little sentence is now changed into a sentence containing 51 words. This has deen done in order to provide that an employee or manager may give a member of his own family resident with him alcoholic liquor. By the time one has waded through the amended provision, it takes one about five minutes to understand what it is all about. This is what I mean by suggesting that a much simpler approach could have been adopted.

I do not want to go into the details of the clauses, but there are one or two matters to which I want to refer so that the hon. the Minister can consider them. One he has dealt with himself, and I refer to the fact that election days are to be closed days. On the recommendation of a Select Committee which considered this problem from every angle, this House took a decision and amended the Electoral Consolidation Act as an experiment. I repeat that it was a decision of this House agreed to by the Minister of the Interior. However, the Minister of Justice has his own empire and he is not prepared to accept the will of Parliament or the decision of his colleague, the Minister of the Interior; he says, “No, as Minister of Justice, I am going to frustrate the will of Parliament; I am going to frustrate the will of a Select Committee and while you have amended the Electoral Consolidation Act, I will block you through legislation which I control.” The object of that amendment of the Electoral Consolidation Act was to test whether South Africans were becoming adults or whether they still have to be treated like children. This, I think, is fundamental to the thinking when it comes to liquor. The Liquor Act treats everybody who gets anywhere within sight of a bottle of liquor like a child who must be restricted, protected, limited, tied. We wanted to make a small test in order to establish whether South Africans were now adult enough to do as people in every civilized country in the world do and that is to fight an election without being told that they cannot be trusted in case they have a drink.

You just keep the liquor in the boot of your car.

Yes, the legislation does not stop this practice because one can keep one’s liquor in the boot of one’s motor-car, but it embodies the principle that South Africans are not adult enough to be trusted to fight an election, that everybody must be treated as though incapable of any sort of self-control. This is one of the things which the hon. the Minister himself highlighted by saying in his introductory speech that although this House had amended section 181 of the Electoral Consolidation Act, he was not prepared to accept that and was going to block it.