Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 2, in line 24, after “bank” to insert “and published in the Gazette”;
2. (2) on page 6, in line 2, after “desirable” to insert:

I hope the hon. the Minister will accept both these amendments. In regard to the first amendment he did indicate that he would debate this issue with me during the Committee Stage. He indicated that there was no objection to making the information public. If that is so, I really do not need to motivate this at any great length. I would rather wait for the hon. the Minister to react.

In regard to the second amendment, I indicated during Second Reading that the intention was purely that the money (which) in this fund should be completely sterilized except for the permissive use in terms of the Statute, and that if it was going to be used by the Treasury for any other purpose, it should be with the approval of Parliament. Before motivating it any further, I would rather wait for the hon. the Minister to react.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the first amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville I have no great problem, because the intention all along has been that if a new price is determined this should be made known. There is no question whatever of concealing this from anyone. However, what I would wish to propose is a slightly different wording. I think we should make it perfectly clear that we must not be bound to the validity of the new price in practice until it has been published in the Gazette. Therefore, with your leave, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the following amendment—

I think that should satisfy the hon. member. I am perfectly happy to leave it at that.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to meet the particular problem mentioned by the hon. the Minister in the sense that I see merit in the fact that the price should become effective immediately and not wait until the Gazette appears. I am quite happy with that. With the leave of the House I will withdraw my amendment and will support the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister, in his enthusiasm to meet my problem, has, I think, forgotten to deal with my second amendment. Perhaps he would like to comment on that now.

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, I myself do not think that this is really necessary. No one is more determined to see this so-called sterilization of this amount being effectively done than I am. However, what we are asking is that the Treasury and the bank … Rather let me read it as it stands—

That is simply saying that part of that amount could be put into the State Revenue Fund. Of course, it cannot be used except with the permission of Parliament. No moneys may be taken out of the State Revenue Fund except with the approval of Parliament. I therefore think the hon. member for Yeoville may possibly agree with me that full control is, in fact, there. It is merely a question of a book transfer from one account to another; nothing more. That money, if it is to be used, must have the approval of Parliament. That is our approach to it, and that is why I have some difficulty with the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be able to convince the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment, for the following reasons. Parliament appropriates expenditure. Parliament does not, in this sense, appropriate revenue. The difficulty is that once it is in the Revenue Fund it can be used in respect of expenditure that has been appropriated by Parliament. The hon. the Minister is quite right in respect of expenditure, but this is a revenue item, and once it is in the State Revenue Fund, we have had it, if I may use that term. Then we are entirely in the hands of the hon. the Minister. That is why, if the hon. the Minister agrees that it should not be used without the approval of Parliament, he should, with respect, accept this amendment.

I do not want to waste the time of the House unnecessarily. The matter has been debated fully at Second Reading. However, with great respect to the hon. the Minister, once money is in the Revenue Fund it does not need a further appropriation by Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, I have a genuine difficulty here. If one says this has to be done with the approval of Parliament, it could just happen that an amount needs to be transferred in this way with some urgency. I do not foresee it. I cannot think at the moment of such a case arising, but it could arise. It might be that we have to wait six months if parliamentary approval has to be given simply for the transfer from one account to the other—out of the Reserve Bank into the State Revenue Account.

I really think the hon. member’s intentions are good, but I think his fears are ungrounded.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister if he would consider, before the Bill goes to the Other Place, making provision for a safeguard in respect of Parliament? If the hon. the Minister undertakes to do that, I shall not press my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly prepared to do that. I have given my view on the matter as I see it at the moment, but I am perfectly prepared to give further attention to it and if I can be persuaded in the meantime that the hon. member’s fears are well founded I will take the necessary measures in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, with the leave of the House I withdraw my amendments.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Finance agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief on this. The one amendment that we moved has been met and the second one will be considered. There is just one last appeal that I would like to make to the hon. the Minister. Could he give attention, firstly, to the complete revision of the Reserve Bank Act so that we can get a new statute and, secondly, could he in doing so see to it that the section I referred to, during the Second Reading debate, the famous section which gives the authoritarian powers to do almost anything in South Africa—to suspend laws, to make laws, to abolish laws, merely by the stroke of a pen—will disappear from the Statute Book of South Africa?

Mr. Speaker, when we discussed another aspect of the Bill yesterday, I said that we in the Treasury are very reasonable people. With regard to the second question, we shall consider it in the light of the hon. member’s request. Of course I cannot commit myself now, but we shall consider it very thoroughly.

†With regard to the hon. member’s first point concerning the consolidation of the Reserve Bank Act, I would like to say that this is something that we have tentatively talked about. I shall discuss the matter further with the officials of the Reserve Bank and we can certainly see whether we cannot bring this Act right up to date, especially now that we have brought this important new amendment to bear. We will certainly look into the matter.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night, I was asking if the hon. the Minister could clarify for us the basis of calculation whereby he is going to take the R520 million from these various categories of institutions. What we really want from the hon. the Minister is an explanation of the following statement which he made in his Second Reading speech—

The inference of that would be that the increase of 5%, from 50% to 55%, over the period September 1977 to March 1978, would apply to the total sum, including their past investments, as opposed to simply drawing it out of the 1977-’78 cash inflow to these various categories. It is of more than academic interest to know the answer to this question. I fully appreciate that the hon. the Minister said that at a later stage such powers would be used—here he was referring to the power of modifying these increases—if it should become apparent that the prescribed rate of increase will produce more than is actually needed. I hope the hon. the Minister, when he replies to the Second Reading debate, will tell us which method of calculation has been used.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to follow the speech of my colleague, the hon. member for Johannesburg-North, as I wish to restrict myself to clause 6 of the Bill. It seems that every time a Financial Institutions Amendment Bill is introduced, it is very bad news for insurance brokers. Hon. members will recall that last year there was a clause which gave the hon. the Minister the power to restrict the commission which insurance brokers can earn. Clause 6 of this Bill contains a provision which will again reduce the income which insurance brokers will receive. Clause 6 relates to the method by which insurance premiums will flow from the broker to the insurance companies. I think it is important that I spell out what the situation is at the present moment. At present a broker has three options. He must choose one of them when it comes to remitting his insurance premiums to the insurance companies. These three options are, firstly, the six days option, secondly, the 45 days option and, thirdly, the 90 days option.

In respect of the six days option the broker is required, within six days of actually receiving the premiums from his clients, to remit those premiums to the insurance companies. He is entitled to retain his commission and he is not required to invest that premium money in any trust account or anything like that, during that short time he has it. He is not responsible for any solvency risk if his client goes bankrupt. He does not have to make good any money his client owes the insurance company. Also, if his client is a bad payer, whose debts have been outstanding for a long time, the insurance broker is not required to pay out the money to the company before he gets that money from the client.

The second option is the 45 days option. It operates very similarly to the six days option, except that the broker is obliged to put the premiums into a trust account when he receives them. Like in the case of the six days option, he is not responsible for the solvency of his client. When his client owes money to the insurance company, the broker does not have to make good that money. If his clients are late payers, he does not have to pay the insurance companies before he receives the money from his clients. Because he will have the money for some 45 days after receipt, this option is very popular amongst many insurance brokers. This option is therefore quite generally used.

The third option, the 90 days option, is radically different from the other two options in so far that if one adopts the 90 days option, one has to pay the insurance company within 90 days after the month-end in which the premium actually became due. This means that if one debits out a premium to a client during the month and the client receives his statement at the beginning of the next month, one has 90 days in which to pay that money to the insurance company, whether one receives that money or not. Whether one receives the money or not and whether the client goes bankrupt or not, as the broker one is obliged to pay that money to the Insurer. In normal business, people normally pay only 30 days after statement or are obliged to pay 30 days after statement. With that the first 30 days of the 90 days are gone.

Secondly, it is almost impossible for even the best company with the best credit control and running the tightest accounts department to check to see who has not paid until the next statement comes through and then 60 days are past. Therefore even the best broking firms with the best accounting officers find that the normal book is outstanding for approximately 60 days. What has happened in the past is that where brokers have felt that the credit-worthiness of their client is very good and that they would therefore be happy to take the solvency risk—together with very smart accounting organizations and very tight credit controls—they have adopted the 90 day option for the simple reason that although they were taking the solvency risk and although they were responsible for any late payments by clients—when they have to carry the clients because either they cannot or will not pay—it means on average that they have their clients’ money in their own account for about 30 days on which they could earn interest. If one takes the 30 days call rate—at the average one can expect over a period of years—and work it out at 6% per annum, it means that on 30 days one is receiving, 5% interest, which on a R1 million turnover for a broking firm, would give it an additional income of R5 000. What service did the insurance broker render for the R5 000 interest he earns on money, which one could argue was in fact the insurance company’s money? First of all, he was carrying the entire solvency risk on that R1 million. If a client owed R1 million to the insurance company, went bankrupt and could not pay the R1 million, the insurance broker was on line for that R1 million. Secondly, it did all the reconciliation, all the accounting, and it guaranteed a cash flow to the insurance company. The insurance company knows that 90 days after the money is due, they will in fact get the money. For that service which the broker has given the company in the past they would get on average—if it is a very tightly run broking firm—that little bit of extra interest which, to certain companies, is an important factor in their revenue.

Now it is felt that that interest should not go to the benefit of the insurance broking company, but should go to the benefit of the insurance company. I believe that that is not going to happen, because the provisions of clause 6 of the Bill provide that the six-day option is going to remain. In other words, the right which the insurance broker has to pay over the money, less commission, six days after he has received it, is going to remain. The 45 day option is going to be scrapped, i.e. the option which the insurance broker has of paying the commission over 45 days after the end of the month in which he has received it, provided that when he receives the money he puts it into a trust account. The option in terms of which the insurance broker has to pay 90 days after the month-end in which the premiums became due, is going to be continued except that the period is not going to be 90 days, but 60 days. This is what the provisions of clause 6 actually deal with.

The impact of this is that because even the best-run broking firm has got to do jolly well if its average book is to be kept at 60 days, there is no financial benefit to the insurance broking company at all to go over to the new 60 day option. If it is very good and can get its Book down to 45 days, which means a decrease of 15 days, it can earn up to R2 500 on a turnover of R1 million. It is hardly worth it if one considers the risk that he has to take. The first risk is the solvency risk. The second risk that he has to take is that if there are bad financial times and people start paying their accounts late, then he could find himself running into very serious financial problems. Banks putting on credit squeezes and clients not paying can cause a broker to find himself with a tremendous financial problem. There will accordingly be no financial benefit to him to do this. This means that many brokers are going to consider the six days option. They are going to hold that as there is no money in it for them to adopt the new 60 days option they will rather go for the six day option. One must look at the impact that this is going to have, not only upon the insurance companies and the brokers, but also on the insuring public, the man in the street.

What is going to happen is that insurance companies, who are at the present moment so reliant on the very fine accounting organization of the big brokers, are suddenly going to find themselves having to reconcile millions of different debits, cheques that are arriving and the whole credit control situation which the big brokers have got is now going to devolve on the companies themselves. They would have to undertake credit control and to make sure that the brokers’ clients pay timeously. It is certainly not going to be in brokers interest to pay out money to have a huge organization in order to keep this kind of control going. The second factor is that the companies are going to have to invest in enormous overheads in order to try to maintain the situation. Any savings or any additional interest that the companies may get in having the money coming to them 30 days earlier, is going to be wasted through the complete accounting shambles which I think is going to come about as a result of this. It does not matter how good or how big the insurance companies build up their accounting situation, the brokers’ client is one removed from the company. They first go to the broker and the broker goes to the client. One can conceive a situation where, in fact, a broker will debit a client on, say, six policies with six different companies with a certain premium figure for each policy. The client will send back just one cheque which may not actually reconcile with the debit sent out. Let us say that he is debited for R5 672 and he sends a cheque back for R3 000 on account. The broker accepts the R3 000 on account. It is not allocated in any way and he will then take any proportion he sees fit and send it to the insurance company as a sort of pro rata on their account. One is going to have the problem of reconciling by going back to the broker, the broker to the client, the client to the broker, the broker to the company. In the end the money is not going to move as rapidly to the company as it is moving at the present moment as the money is going to be longer with the client and it will move even more slowly to the insurance company. The insurance companies are looking for additional income, but they will find themselves with less income. In addition, the money will move to them slower on the long run and they will also have to incur huge additional accounting costs in trying to reconcile its accounts.

The hon. the Minister said that the broking industry and the insurance industry were ad idem on this measure. That is absolutely correct, but from the brokers point of view— and I am not talking for the brokers; I am only giving my impression of what I believe the situation may be—they are very much at the mercy of the hon. the Minister. They feel that their case is so little understood by the hon. the Minister that if they were to make too much of a fuss by objecting too strongly, they could find themselves not having 60 days in which to do it, but perhaps only 45 days. They may even find that their relations with the hon. the Minister may become that much more difficult, and this could be to their detriment and to their prejudice in the future.

I would like the hon. the Minister to look at this clause solely on its merits. On merit there can be very little justification for it. It looks good on paper. However, it is one of those things which, when one looks at it on paper, it looks as if the income, instead of going to the brokers, is going to go to the insurance companies. In practice, everybody is going to lose. The insurance brokers are going to lose, the insurance companies are going to lose and in the end the insuring public is going to lose. I think the hon. the Minister should look carefully at this clause before he proceeds with it.

Mr. Speaker, apparently all the Opposition parties object to the proposed measure concerning the increase in the percentage of investments to be made by savings institutions in the prescribed assets. I want to come to that argument at once. I cannot associate myself with the arguments advanced against this measure. In the first place we are dealing with large funds. They are growing funds. The insurers, the pension funds, the banks and the building societies deal with very large amounts. From time to time very large funds have to be invested. To say that the small increase in that portion of their total funds which has to be invested in prescribed assets and in Government stock, is a form of socialism, is rather a serious exaggeration. The first question I want to ask is: How certain can the hon. Opposition be that it will be possible to find suitable investments at a given time for these large funds? Let us take the present position. Would it be possible to invest these funds in shares? Where should the investment possibilities be found? In the present circumstances I think this proposal definitely offers a solution, for at least a portion of the funds that have to be invested. What is even more, the funds have to be invested in a way which protects the investors from risks and insecurity.

[Inaudible.]

No, Mr. Speaker. As I said on an earlier occasion in this House, the first essential requirement for the investment of insurance funds and pension funds is security. Obviously one is also going to look at the return. One must do that. The first essential to my mind, however, is clearly security. And this is, of course, the most secure type of investment, a gilt-edged investment. I therefore want to repeat that since the funds concerned are rapidly growing funds, the insurance companies, pension funds, the building societies and even the banks have to be sure that they can find the suitable investment outlets, at any moment in time, for these large funds. One cannot simply say that they can invest anywhere at all and that without this type of gilt-edged investment they can find suitable avenues for the proper placing of the funds. This is a very important practical consideration.

There is another aspect which I think has gone by default in the arguments of the Opposition. I am referring to the fact that these institutions, for example the insurance companies and the pension funds, have very substantial income tax concessions granted to them. The State places them in a preferential position compared with many other important institutions. For that reason alone, I would think, these institutions might feel that some responsibility devolved on them to look also at the overall requirements of the State in this respect.

It has also been said—I think by the hon. member for Yeoville—that this measure, this move to increase the percentages, as stated in the Bill, has apparently had a very bad effect on the Stock Exchange. I cannot see that. I hope the hon. member may be able to give us proof of this. Is the hon. member in fact saying that if it had not been for this move to raise these percentages, the Stock Exchange would have been more active than it is?

There would have been more money available for equity investment.

Yes, but I am saying that there is, in fact, a limited extent to which these institutions can invest in equities at the moment. That is my view.

Well, the president of the Stock Exchange would not agree with you.

It is not quite as simple as that, because one has also to take into account the suitability of the investment. Then, of course, there have been certain quotations here from what has been said by leading figures in these fields of activity, quotations suggesting that this was something they could not support. Yet for every statement by a personality or leader in these fields who is opposed to this measure, I can quote another who is in favour of it. I should like to draw attention again to a senior executive of probably the biggest single institution involved. He immediately came out in public and said he thought this was absolutely justified in the national interest. Our discussions with these interests were in fact extremely constructive. These various interests were extremely co-operative when we talked to them about these possibilities.

The hon. member for Johannesburg-North referred to some minute—I think he called it a minute— …

They are in fact notes of a meeting.

Yes. I understood him to say that those notes had been drawn up by some people involved in the Pension Funds Association and that it was supposed to be the notes of a meeting which had taken place in April between senior representatives of the pension funds and myself. I must say, Sir, that it comes as an extremely unpleasant surprise to me to find a thing like this bandied about in public. I meet people representing different interests in the economy probably weekly on all sorts of issues. This was one such meeting. These things are not bandied about in public. I should like to know who drew up those notes. There is one thing said there that is completely incorrect. I am supposed to have said that one of the reasons for our adopting this measure was that capital had dried up. I never said anything of the kind. I checked with the senior officials who were present with me and they all agree I am perfectly correct in saying that that is an entirely untrue statement. Those notes were never cleared with me. If they were to be used in public, why was the elementary courtesy not shown of clearing those notes with me? I think the hon. member has shown considerable irresponsibility. May I ask him across the floor of the House: Who drew up those notes?

These notes were drawn up presumably by representatives of the Pension and Provident Funds of South Africa and were put to the chairman and vice-chairman of the council.

I must say that that surprises me, because I have always found those people thoroughly responsible. I cannot think how any member of that deputation which came to see me would have handed the purported notes of that meeting to an hon. member of this House without my knowledge, because it was never cleared with me.

It has been widely circulated.

Well, that makes it worse. I will obviously take this matter up with the representatives of the pension funds, because if this is the way in which they are going to operate, I will of course rethink my approach to the whole matter and to them. I consider this thoroughly irresponsible and I merely want to take the opportunity to say that I never at any time referred to the drying up of capital, because that is not the case. I have said that time and again in the House. Therefore in some alleged document allegedly drafted by someone in the pension fund movement I am quoted completely incorrectly.

It is not an “alleged document”.

Well, where is the document? How is it that I do not have it?

There are lots of people who do not have it.

I shall be more than delighted to send you a copy.

I can obtain that from the pension fund people themselves in the circumstances.

Anyway, in the course of the discussions on this particular proposal to raise the proportion of the funds to be invested in prescribed assets of these institutions, reference was again made to the capital position of the country. I should like to take this opportunity to stress again that under present conditions I intend to continue to mobilize our own capital resources as effectively as I can. This is something that was supported by the hon. member for Constantia yesterday in the debate. I will certainly continue to do that and I think the House may be interested to know that in this climate where we are told every day that there is no foreign capital available we have as recently as the last day or two drawn from the IMF a standby credit, an extension of the standby credit we drew last year, of R38 million on extremely favourable terms. Hon. members might have noticed in the latest statement of the Reserve Bank that the reserves rose last week by R7 million net and for this week we have the further inflow of this R38 million from this source. What is interesting is that these things are not done automatically.

*Last year we had to agree on certain targets with the IMF to draw this standby credit and to have it made available to us. Those targets on which we agreed at the time have now been achieved and we are able to draw a further R38 million. Those targets concerned bank credit to the Government and private sectors. I am mentioning this to prove once again that we are still drawing capital to South Africa from abroad.

I proceed by dealing with a few other aspects raised in the course of the debate. The hon. member for Ermelo and others effectively replied to the criticism to which I have just referred with regard to the increased percentages of investment in prescribed assets.

†The establishment of an advisory committee on long-term insurance business is a very important move. In connection with this particular point the hon. member for Yeoville asked me what my view is on the report of the commission of inquiry on long-term insurance. My immediate reaction on reading this report is that it is an extremely valuable and thorough document. It is receiving the very careful study of my department and myself at this moment. When we have completed that detailed study I shall certainly have more to say about the recommendations in the report. The hon. member for Yeoville also raised the question of insurance for servicemen. This is a matter which is being studied at the moment in the light of the commission’s report. We shall deal specifically with that at a later stage too.

I must say that I welcome the entry of the hon. member for Walmer into these financial debates. Although he seems to be opposing this measure for some reason he nevertheless introduces a bit of fresh air into these debates and I think in the course of time we shall persuade him to support this type of measure in future. In regard to the specific point he put to me on building societies—a very important point—I would like to give him the assurance that not only I, but the Department of Finance as a whole and, of course, the Registrar of Financial Institutions, look very closely at the interests of the building societies all the time. I can give him the assurance that we shall continue to do so because we realize very clearly the importance of this movement.

As far as the question of curators is concerned, the hon. member for Yeoville, among others, dealt with this issue and he was rather critical in regard to certain aspects of this clause. Of course the curator performs his task under the supervision of the Registrar of Financial Institutions and I can say without any doubt at all that equal treatment will be given to all depositors of a particular class or to people who are creditors. It has never been our intention in any way that there should be the sort of discrimination which I think the hon. member saw.

Then why is it in the Bill?

The hon. member must give us an opportunity of putting these things into practice and he will see how these things are done under the direct supervision of the Registrar of Insurance. I do not think I need to go into that in detail at this stage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the hon. member on that point. I would appreciate it if I could just continue to reply. A number of other points have been raised and I ought to reply to these as well. The hon. member for Constantia, I think, quoted Mr. Gordon of the insurance industry as saying that the insurers would need 65% of their cash flow to comply with the new requirements under these prescribed assets. I think that was the point.

I thought I would mention that the actuary in the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions has made a calculation that, depending on the rate of growth of insurance and pension funds—one has to make certain assumptions—they will need less than 50% of their cash flow for this purpose. I merely mention this. This was a very carefully done exercise.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North asked about the basis of the calculation of the compulsory investments. I want to answer him very briefly. Careful calculations were made of course to arrive at the proposed basis, which we hope will yield R520 million from insurers and pension funds. Among the factors taken into account were, firstly, the present holdings of gilts and semi-gilts by institutions which will qualify. The second point taken into account was the concessions contained in section 18bis of the Act, in terms of which insurers have ten years, as from 1971, to make up any shortfall in part 1 assets which existed at that time on account of the then increase in the prescribed ratios. These concessions, of course, still apply and have to be taken into account. The voluntary increase of 2% which institutions were asked to make last year is another factor. The fourth factor is the increased ratios applied to the business of institutions as at 31 March 1978, something that will have to be given effect to in stages over the year. That is another point that has to be taken into account. Those were some of the issues which we bore in mind when we tried to arrive at this R520 million. I may add that we also discussed these factors with senior representatives of the insurance industry and of the pension funds.

Another point that was raised was the one referring to brokers or intermediaries. This point was raised very briefly by the hon. member for Yeoville, and also this morning by the hon. member for Randburg. Of course, as the hon. member correctly pointed out, there are certain options. We are not simply saying this has to be done in one particular way. The hon. member for Yeoville specifically made the point that by putting up the guarantees— fairly substantial guarantees—we were really prejudicing the small man. The small man, if he cannot reasonably comply, has certain other ways. He can, for instance, use the trust account.

That is not so.

Yes, it is so. If the hon. member will read the Bill, it is clearly stated. It is proposed that these insurance intermediaries will have three options. Let us just look at these for a moment. They will have three options to pay over premiums. Firstly, as the hon. member for Randburg said, they can pay within six days after receipt. Secondly, they can pay within 60 days on the basis of keeping a trust account, and thirdly, they can pay within 60 days on the basis of providing this guarantee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister if it is correct that it is not 60 days after receipt of the money, but that it is 60 days after the due date?

That is correct. The new provisions provide the alternatives that I have just referred to. From the point of view of the insurers, we feel that it is imperative that the present basis be tightened up so that they will get their premiums within a reasonable time. In other words, a fair balance must be maintained between the opposing interests. Again, I have listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Randburg said. Of course, he talks with professional knowledge of the subject, but again I would like to suggest that we should be given an opportunity to put this into effect. Let us see how this works out. There are constant criticisms reaching the registrar from various people in the industry as a whole, pointing out that there are certain defects and problems. We are endeavouring to the very best of our ability, to try to improve that situation. If it turns out that there are clear problems that arise for brokers which are unreasonable, then I stand ready at all times to discuss those problems at any time with the brokers, the intermediaries, as I would do with any other section of the industry to see that we reach an equitable position. We do not want to prejudice people who form an integral part of the industry. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I am not, and never have been, a person who would attack a middleman of any kind, because he provides a productive economic service. The intermediary is an absolute key part of the industry and it is not our intention to place him at a disadvantage that would prejudice his position in the industry.

If it turns out, in the light of these proposals, which have been very carefully formulated after substantial discussions—the registrar has gone to very great lengths in this respect—that there are still practical problems arising for the brokers, I hope they will approach us immediately. Then we can take it further. That is my attitude on the matter as it is on all these issues, some of which are rather technical. However, of the importance of the insurance industry and the importance of the broker in that industry we have absolutely no doubt.

I think I have dealt with the main issues that were raised, and I thank you for the opportunity of addressing the House.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—92: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grey ling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treumicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. Le Roux, N. F. Treumicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—43: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; 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.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During the course of the debate in connection with the Status of Bophuthatswana Bill certain remarks were made in regard to the question of the economic viability of Bophuthatswana. I therefore feel that it would be appropriate to refer to this matter briefly before discussing the financial arrangements proposed in the Bill which is before us.

I think most of us would agree that the term “economic viability” does not only cover a situation existing at a particular point of time, but also relates to potential future developments. In trying to form a balanced view of Bohuthatswana’s economic viability it would therefore not be fair merely to compare the present level of the national income of that homeland with the national income of the Republic or with the levels of income pertaining in less developed countries which already enjoy political independence. It is nevertheless interesting to note that even the 1970 figures of Bophuthatswana would seem to compare favourably with the 1974 statistics of some of the countries in the latter group.

It is true, of course, that certain aspects of the stage of development which has been reached by Bophuthatswana, cannot be considered as satisfactory. I have in mind for example the fact that such a large section of the population of Bophuthatswana still finds it necessary to seek employment in South Africa. It is my contention, however, that this phenomenon cannot be regarded as a reliable indication that Bophuthatswana has an uncertain future. Even in Europe there are still certain countries where it is the general rule that substantial numbers of workers take up temporary employment abroad. Bophuthatswana therefore does not find itself in a unique situation in so far as the underlying problem is concerned. Moreover, certain important changes have been taking place and I think it would only be fair to recognize the fact that the economic position of Bophuthatswana would have been worse, had it not been for the policies pursued by the South African Government.

Prior to 1970 one could hardly notice any industrial activity in Bophuthatswana. Thanks to the programme for the decentralization of industries, the position has since changed rapidly. At Babelegi, the first growth point developed inside a Bantu homeland, there are now approximately 80 factories in production, and several new ones are being built. The location of industries in Bophuthatswana has not been limited to Babelegi and quite a number of factories have been erected at other places in the homeland.

The success achieved in the short span of approximately seven years, serves as an effective illustration of the possibilities which lie ahead. The proximity of a large part of Bophuthatswana to the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging region which represents the most important market for industrial products in South Africa, will continue to exert a favourable influence on the homeland’s further development. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that industrialization will not continue to be encouraged by an independent Bophuthatswana. On the contrary, there is ample evidence that the creation of employment opportunities through industrial development is regarded as a top priority by the Bophuthatswana authorities.

Quite apart from the possibilities for industrial development which in many other developing countries represent the only way to a significant increase in prosperity, Bophuthatswana has been blessed with substantial mineral riches. The largest platinum mine in the world is located on the border between the Republic and Bophuthatswana while the second largest one is inside Bophuthatswana. Other important minerals produced in Bophuthatswana include vanadium, manganese, asbestos and chrome.

The point has been made that the mines involved are not really of great significance to Bophuthatswana in view of the fact that they are controlled from outside the homeland and since they do not provide employment to many Bophuthatswana citizens. While it is true that in the past Tswanas were not keen to turn to mining as an occupation, there have been signs lately that the position is changing.

In so far as the question of control is concerned, it may be pointed out that in the case of the Republic itself a substantial part of the domestic economic activity must be attributed to investments made in this country by foreign concerns. The remittance from South Africa of profits accruing from these investments, of course, does not deprive the Republic of the opportunity to derive substantial amounts of Government revenue from the activity involved. Similarly the mines in Bophuthatswana will in future serve as an important source of revenue for the Bophuthatswana Government. In addition they will serve as a catalyst for secondary and tertiary economic activity in Bophuthatswana.

I think that enough has been said about the economic potential of Bophuthatswana. What remains to be done, is to work out a satisfactory basis on which South Africa can assist the new country to turn these possibilities into reality.

Bophuthatswana will need time to build up its own revenues to satisfactory levels. In the meantime assistance will be required from the Republic and it is the intention to grant such such assistance in a manner which will provide security to Bophuthatswana and facilitate the proper planning of its expenditure.

*Mr. Speaker, although the proposed arrangements do not specifically show any important deviations from the pattern adopted in the case of Transkei I would, for the convenience of hon. members, briefly like to clarify the various clauses of the Bill.

Clause 1(1):

The necessary legal powers for the transfer of funds to Bophuthatswana are at present contained in the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act. As hon. members are aware, however, the intention is that from the date of independence of Bophuthatswana this Act shall no longer be applicable to that country. At that stage the total amount, made available for Bophuthatswana in respect of the present financial year, will not yet have been transferred. Clause 1(1) therefore envisages, firstly, the transfer of the balance of such funds to Bophuthatswana.

At present there are still certain services which are carried out in, or on behalf of, Bophuthatswana by Government Departments in the Republic. On the date of independence these services will, however, become the responsibility of the Bophuthatswana Government. Since the relevant departments have budgeted for the full 1977-’78 financial year, this consequently means that in respect of the period between the date of independence and 31 March 1978 they will have a surplus. The intention is to transfer such funds to Bophuthatswana as well.

Clause 1(1) also makes provision for the transfer to Bophuthatswana of any further amounts that may be made available in the additional appropriation or by way of Ministerial authorization.

Clause 1(2):

As in the case of certain Government Departments which have budgeted for a full financial year in respect of services in Bophuthatswana and will stop incurring expenditure in this connection at the time of independence, there are also other bodies that will have unutilized funds that can be transferred to Bophuthatswana. Clause 1(2) aims at authorizing the transfer of such funds.

Clause 1(3):

Taxes paid by citizens of Bophuthatswana in the Republic, in terms of the Bantu Taxation Act, are transferred to Bophuthatswana in terms of the provisions of the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act. As has been mentioned, when Bophuthatswana becomes independent these provisions will cease to be applicable to the country. Clause 1(3) authorizes the transfer to Bophuthatswana of that portion of such taxes for the 1977-’78 financial year which have not been transferred when Bophuthatswana becomes independent.

Clause 1(4):

Section 7(1) of the Exchequer and Auditor Act, in terms of which additional funds— hence funds not included in the budget—can be made available by the Minister of Finance for the defraying of expenses, does, however, also place a limit on the total amount that can thus be made available. Section 7(2) of the Exchequer and Auditor Act also provides that steps should be taken for the voting of such additional funds during the Parliamentary session following upon the date on which the funds are made available by the Minister. Clause 1(4) provides that any additional funds made available for Bophuthatswana by the Minister of Finance in terms of clause 1(1)(d) will also be subject to the above-mentioned provisions of the Exchequer and Auditor Act. This means, in other words, that such additional funds for Bophuthatswana will be included in the total amount which the Minister can make available in terms of section 7(1) of the Exchequer and Auditor Act—2% of the relevant budget at the time. This means that such funds must also be voted.

Clause 2:

In contrast to clause 1, which applies only to the 1977-’78 financial year, clause 2 relates to future financial years. Authorization is being obtained in terms of clause 2 for an agreement with Bophuthatswana in terms of which the following amounts can be transferred to Bophuthatswana every year, subject to such conditions and for such periods as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs may determine—

1. (a) The taxes paid every year by citizens of Bophuthatswana in the Republic in terms of the Bantu Taxation Act. This amount will therefore vary. It shall not be regarded as revenue accruing to the Republic and shall be transferred to Bophuthatswana directly, as is the case at present.
2. (b) An amount determined by the Minister of Finance, but not exceeding the total expenditure of the RSA in, or on behalf of, Bophuthatswana in the 1977-’78 financial year—i.e. expenditure by normal Government Departments and other bodies, for example the Railways and the Post Office—plus an additional amount which Bophuthatswana will need, in particular to continue with its new services in the 1978-’79 financial year, i.e. a full financial year, minus the additional revenue which Bophuthatswana will receive in the 1978-’79 financial year. Once the total amount at issue here has been determined, it shall remain constant. It shall also represent a statutory amount in future estimates.

Clause 2 also provides for the transfer to Bophuthatswana of any additional amount that may be voted for Bophuthatswana by Parliament in any specific year.

Clause 3:

In this clause provision is made for the transfer of certain assets to Bophuthatswana.

Clause 4:

It is an accepted principle that assets, in connection with services that become the responsibility of a homeland government, are transferred free of charge to such government. In the case of assets of the Post Office and the Railways and Harbours Administration the intention, however, is to compensate the relevant bodies for assets, which are transferred, by reducing the relevant bodies’ loan debt to the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, when the Financial Arrangements with the Transkei Bill was debated last year, we on this side of the House made it quite clear that, although we were strongly opposed to the principle of granting independence to the Transkei, we would nevertheless support to the hilt reasonable financial measures and assistance to help the Transkei to become a successful and viable independent State once its independence had become a fait accompli. The Bill before us today, which deals with Bophuthatswana, is practically an identical Bill to the Bill that dealt with the Transkei, and the circumstances surrounding the introduction of this Bill are of a very similar nature.

Sir, I think that on this occasion the need for the Bill is brought into even sharper relief than was the case with the Bill in respect of the Transkei. I say that for two reasons. In the first place we have now had a few months’ experience of what to expect after a homeland becomes independent. We have found—it was not unexpected—that not one country in the world except ourselves has recognized the independence of the Transkei. Therefore, the possibility of financial and economic help and investments from other countries is relatively slight. It therefore becomes more clear than ever that the Transkei is going to have to lean heavily on the Republic and undoubtedly the same is going to apply to Bophuthatswana once it becomes independent.

The second reason why I say that this Bill brings into sharper relief the need for financial assistance is that, while the Transkei is not in itself a viable State, Bophuthatswana is even less viable.

How can you say that?

What do you mean by “viable”?

I say that for very good reasons. Bophuthatswana is a smaller country. Its per capita income is considerably less than the per capita income of the Transkei. Furthermore, it certainly does not help, economically, that the country is fragmented into a number of isolated parts. [Interjections.]

That is a hackneyed little argument.

The hon. member need not get hot and bothered about what I am saying. These are the facts of the situation, and, while the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech spoke optimistically about the economic potential of Bophuthatswana—I hope Bophuthatswana will have a prosperous economic future—we must nevertheless face the fact that in its present state of development it is a poor country.

Therefore, though we voiced opposition to the granting of independence to Bophuthatswana, we shall certainly support this Bill wholeheartedly. This is a Bill which provides for the maintenance of the status quo financially as far as the current financial year is concerned in that the finance which is made available to Bophuthatswana while it is still a part of the Republic will continue to be available to it after independence. It enables the Government to provide financial assistance for later years and it provides for the transfer of Government, Railway, Post Office, provincial, etc. assets to Bophuthatswana on independence. This Bill therefore fills what would otherwise be a very unfortunate financial vacuum and I think it provides a reasonable send-off from the financial angle for independence.

Finally, I should like to say that we on this side of the House hope that this financial assistance which is provided for in the Bill is something which is gradually going to disappear as Bophuthatswana develops economically. There can be little future satisfaction in independence for any State as long as that independence is accompanied by economic and financial dependence on another country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need speak at length on this legislation, in view of the fact that it is supported by the Opposition. However, in response to the remark made by the hon. member for Constantia that Bophuthatswana would not be viable, I want to say that if there is a homeland which will indeed be viable, then it is Bophuthatswana, considering the industrial potential which the hon. the Minister outlined and spelt out in his Second Reading speech, and in view of that I cannot understand …

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

No, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to speak at length.

In view of that, I cannot understand why the hon. member for Constantia made such a statement. The second aspect is that in view of the wonderful potential this homeland has as far as the mining of minerals is concerned, I cannot understand why the Opposition is adopting such a standpoint. I think it is clear that the potential of this emergent State is wonderful. It is clear that in this process, the Republic of South Africa is once again giving effect that which it has undertaken to do in a way which testifies to good faith and is in fact doing more than its duty in this regard. May we point out that in contrast to so many other countries in Africa, Bophuthatswana is going to start off without any debt whatsoever? It is correct that it is starting from scratch. It is starting off without any debt. It is starting off with a clean slate and with the financial support which it will receive from the Republic, and although we accept that viability really is a sine qua non, that it is essential, it is our contention—and I believe it will be accepted—that with this additional assistance, Bophuthatswana will have the necessary means to meet its needs. Furthermore, it must be accepted that in future there will always be a special relationship between Bophuthatswana and the Republic, a relationship which is and will be entirely different from our relationships with other States situated further away from us and even with other neighbouring States of ours. Therefore, let this be an example to the world. Let it be an example to the UNO and to Africa of how a State can emerge in a peaceful way, to the benefit of all. In this way Bophuthatswana will be able to administer its own financial affairs and it will in fact be financially independent in the true sense of the word. In this way Bophuthatswana will also be able to operate its national economy in a really orderly and stable way without its having to beg and without its having to adopt the methods adopted by other States in their attempts to obtain capital.

We support this legislation unconditionally. It is in the best interests of both Bophuthatswana and the Republic.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ermelo has followed the usual trend in his speech. However, what is fascinating is his attack upon the hon. member for Constantia for the audacity on the part of the latter hon. member to query the economic viability of Bophuthatswana. This is a remarkable thing for the hon. member for Ermelo to do, in exactly the same way as it was a remarkable thing for the hon. the Minister to come forward with what he said here about this matter. The very reason for this piece of legislation is in fact the non-viability, from an economic and financial point of view, of Bophuthatswana. That is why we are all here. That is why we in these benches, and I hope hon. members of the SAP too—as the official Opposition has already intimated—are going to support this Bill. We must support it because of the non-viability, financially and economically, of Bophuthatswana. That is what it is about. How this can be argued is to me like an Alice in Wonderland: everything is in reverse. [Interjections.]

However, if that argument is to be perpetuated, let us deal with some statistics. The last sensus showed the population of Bophuthatswana to be 2,1 million.

Order! I want to give a ruling at this stage. We are not dealing now with the viability of Bophuthatswana. We are only dealing with a Bill providing for the payment of certain amounts to Bophuthatswana and with the transfer of certain property and with the reduction of the loan debts of the Post Office and Railways and Harbours Administration to the Treasury, etc. I allowed the hon. member for Constantia to refer, just in passing, to the viability of Bophuthatswana, and the hon. member for Ermelo to reply to that. However, this matter is not under discussion and I do not want the hon. member for Yeoville to go into detail.

Mr. Speaker, will you please hear me. I have the hon. the Minister’s speech, which is …

Ah no, Harry!

Would the hon. member for Standerton mind letting me address the Chair?

Keep your wisecracks to yourself!

Would the hon. member for Standerton mind just keeping his mouth shut? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I am addressing you, and I am not prepared to have that noisy nonsense while I am addressing you. [Interjections.] I have a speech of 14 pages which the hon. the Minister delivered, of which seven pages dealt with the economic viability of Bophuthatswana. Let me go one step further. Seven pages—that is half of the hon. the Minister’s speech—dealt with the economic viability of Bophuthatswana. My second point is that the reason why there should or should not be aid for Bophuthatswana depends entirely upon whether that country needs it or not. I propose to address you, Mr. Speaker, on whether Bophuthatswana needs this aid or not, and on whether this House should vote that aid or not. That is the subject on which I want to address you, Mr. Speaker.

Order! I am prepared to allow the hon. member for Yeoville to raise that matter in passing, but I am not going to allow him to argue the matter as to whether Bophuthatswana is economically viable or not. That is not under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to argue whether Bophuthatswana is entitled to this assistance or not?

Yes, I will allow that.

Thank you, Sir. On the last census there were 2,1 million people in Bophuthatswana. Of those 1,8 million were in the White areas, 579 000 in the White urban areas and 1 075 000 were not economically active. In other words, if one takes the total population of 2,1 million, over one million were not economically active. Of the Tswana people only 3 933 had passed std. X, 1 125 had degrees and there were only 611 doctors.

Let us see whether there is an obligation on us to give money to the people of Bophuthatswana as we are being asked to do here. We have a White population in South Africa of 4,31 million. There are 2,1 million Tswanas. In other words, there is virtually one Tswana for every two White South Africans. Yet the land area which we have given them is only 3,77% of the land area of South Africa.

The hon. the Minister spoke about the potential of Bophuthatswana. This is certainly so, but we are dealing with the situation as it is now. What is the gross domestic product on which the hon. member for Constantia was challenged? The gross domestic product of Black Tswanas for 1974 was R66 million, while the gross domestic product of Blacks and Whites in Bophuthatswana was only R115 million. If one takes it as a percentage of the gross domestic product of South Africa in the same year, it was, as far as the Blacks are concerned, 0,28% and as far as the Blacks and Whites in Bophuthatswana are concerned, less than 0,5%. If we take these figures and take into account that Bophuthatswana has 11 post offices, 823 telephones … [Interjections.] Police stations are also material as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana pointed out in another debate. Further, Bophuthatswana has 228 miles of railway line.

In these circumstances, how can anybody say that Bophuthatswana is a country which is economically viable and does not need aid. It is ludicrous to come forward with such a proposition. [Interjections.] This is an act of partition and the potential of the country becomes important in so far as the efforts from now on are concerned. Furthermore, the question that can fairly be asked is: Is this a fair act of partition towards the Tswana people? I believe it is not.

Order! That is not a matter which we can deal with under this Bill.

Well, Sir, we are dealing with the question whether we have to give aid.

Yes, but we are not dealing with the independence of Bophuthatswana.

Sir, I want to say once again what our attitude is. We opposed the Status of Bophuthatswana Bill and we gave the reasons for our opposition. We are not opposed to the concept of independence … [Interjections ] We made it very clear that the concept of independence was not the concept we were opposing. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is here, which is more than one can say of him in relation to the Financial Arrangements with Transkei legislation. The question I want to ask him is whether there is going to be independence on 6 December.

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

Sir, if there is no independence on 6 December, we do not have to vote this money.

Order! We are not going to discuss that. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

With great respect, Sir, we are being asked to vote money for a homeland which is going to become independent on 6 December. Surely that is the principle also of this Bill. If the homeland is not going to become independent, why then do we have to pass this Bill? Surely this is a logical argument. I do not understand why I cannot argue in this way.

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

Vote against the Bill.

No, I am not going to vote against the Bill. The hon. the Minister must not tell me what to do.

You have no guts!

Guts? The hon. the Minister is the right one to talk about guts. Look at him! [Interjections.] The question with which I am dealing is that this is a Bill in terms of which we are going to give aid to a country which is going to become independent, and I want to know whether that country is going to become independent or not on 6 December, because otherwise why should we vote money for it? [Interjections.]

Order! The House has already discussed the Status of Bophuthatswana Bill. We are not dealing with that issue now.

I leave it to the hon. the Minister to tell us what is going to happen.

May I go on then with specific provisions of the Bill and the concept thereof as I have tried to indicate? In the first place we believe that Bophuthatswana needs aid and that there is an obligation on South Africa to give that aid. If the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration shakes his head much more, it will fall off. I am quite serious. He must really not do that so much.

Order! I do not think the hon. member should get personal.

The hon. the Minister sits there shaking his head and making rude noises. It is quite remarkable.

You are touchy.

Am I touchy? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, may I now go on without being interrupted by the hon. the Minister?

As far as Bophuthatswana is concerned, we believe it needs aid. We also believe that when the country becomes independent—we have our doubts about that—it must be put on the path of prosperity. It is quite clear that in the light of the particular relationship which there exists with South Africa, there is every obligation upon us to provide that aid. There is a particular relationship, because Bophuthatswana is still part of South Africa. As far as we in these benches are concerned, we should like to see it becoming part of South Africa again.

Order! We are not dealing with that now.

Sir, with great respect, I can motivate why I want to give money to this homeland.

Yes. However, the hon. member may not discuss whether this homeland should be independent or not.

We in these benches take the view that we hope it will come back into a confederation. That is one of the reasons

But that is not under discussion.

Surely the motivation why we want to vote for money is material, Sir? Surely I am entitled to give reasons why I want to vote for it?

Is the hon. member trying to argue with the Chair now?

I want to address you, Sir. I have tried to indicate the reasons why we want to vote for this Bill. On every occasion when I am trying to say it, it is said that it is not relevant. Surely the motivation of a person as to why he wants to vote for a measure, is relevant?

Order! The hon. member may proceed, but I shall listen to him very carefully.

We express the hope that Bophuthatswana will become a viable and prosperous entity, and as such become part of a federation of Southern Africa or of a confederation of Southern Africa We also believe that in so far as Bophuthatswana is concerned, it would be disastrous if a vacuum were to be created in respect of economic aid to that country. It has been pointed out that with the creation of independent homelands, those homelands have not been able to get aid from elsewhere. Therefore there is a special obligation upon us to see that those homelands get that aid.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in addition to the aid referred to in this piece of legislation, the Economic Development Fund is also available for special contributions in this regard. We are particularly concerned that no vacuum should be created and that Bophuthatswana should not be put into a position of having to accept aid with strings attached to it, but that aid should become available from South Africa on a generous basis without any strings of any kind attached to it.

As far as the mines are concerned, I should like the hon. the Minister to specifically deal with what the arrangements are. We have read certain things in the newspapers, announcements which have been made by people connected with mines as to what they consider the position is. I do not know whether the draft double taxation agreement is available or not. However, if the hon. the Minister could indicate to us how the taxation would work in respect of the mines in particular, in fact in respect of any business enterprise which has its head office and its registered office in South Africa, but which operates within Bophuthatswana, we should be very happy to hear him.

The next matter I want to deal with is the operation of the investment corporation after independence. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to indicate to us how that will operate. For example, will South African entities which establish businesses in Bophuthatswana still get the guarantees against expropriation from the South African Government which they have been getting until now? Will further assistance from the South African Government be available to those investment corporations? As I understand it, investment corporations should become entities which are owned and controlled through Bophuthatswana, but I should like to hear more from the hon. the Minister in respect of this matter.

Specifically in relation to the question of the Railways, I would like to hear from the Minister precisely what will happen in regard to the railways where the lines are joint and where they go from one section of the territory to another. I would also like to hear what the situation is in regard to the Post Office, which is referred to in clause 3 of the Bill. What will happen in respect of the ownership and the transfer of assets when, to some extent, we are transferring assets which have to be cut off, like a telegraph line or telephone line, at a border point? What is the joint operation of these services? What is the arrangement in respect of the transfer of the ownership of these assets which is referred to in clause 3 of the Bill?

I would like to deal with one other specific provision, i.e. clause 1(1 )(b) of the Bill in terms of which there is again a complete discretionary situation. What is interesting in this regard, is that when the hon. the Minister replied to the same point on section 1(1 )(b) of the Transkei legislation, he said: “Oh, this is covered, because the same procedure will apply as applies in regard to special warrants and therefore there is a protection.” As the hon. the Minister knows, the law on special warrants has since been changed and therefore that protection has fallen away. In other words, there is now a complete discretion in respect of this matter.

We hope that Bophuthatswana and its people will prosper, that their standard of living will increase and that they will become a peaceful and contented neighbour of South Africa and, we hope, again a part of this country to which we all belong.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Opposition really amazed me this afternoon. I thought they would support the legislation unanimously, that they would say the hon. the Minister was giving Bophuthatswana too little and that they would propose that more money be paid to Bophuthatswana. If the Opposition is going to oppose the legislation, then there is not only a semblance of hypocrisy on their side, but a mountain of hypocrisy. I hope the Opposition will support the legislation so that they may not be accused of hypocrisy.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocrisy”.

I withdraw it, Sir. The Vote of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was agreed to here in this House and money was voted for all the homelands, including Bophuthatswana. The people of Bophuthatswana asked for their independence and now they are getting it. However, the hon. the Opposition does not want to agree to the passing of legislation providing for the money to be paid to Bophuthatswana. In other words, what this amounts to, is that the Opposition is refusing to give money to those Black people.

But we are supporting that!

Then why are you opposing the legislation with that sort of speech? [Interjections.] Why do the hon. members not agree to the passing of the legislation? [Interjections.] No, that is no way to give one’s support to legislation. [Interjections.] That is not how one supports legislation. One does not say one thing and do another. In my opinion, the hon. Opposition must concede that the Government wants to make a contribution in that regard and that unlike them, we do not want to say “yes” on the one hand and obstruct everything on the other.

Mr. Speaker, we seem to be on the same wavelength in regard to this particular Bill. However, at times it would seem as if the wires have become crossed in some way or another. I am, however, not entering into that dispute. The hon. the Minister said in effect that Bophuthatswana must expand economically to ensure greater job opportunities for the Tswanas. That we obviously all agree with. Obviously we are in agreement that all the resources of Bophuthatswana must be tapped to the maximum so that all the Tswanas may enjoy the benefit of an even higher standard of living than they have at present. There has been talk in this debate about the viability of States in Africa. There are very few States in Africa that are completely viable. Most of the States in Africa are dependent on economic assistance from one side or another. I do not think that there is anything untoward in the fact that Bophuthatswana is going to have to rely on South Africa for many years for its economic viability. We will give them all the assistance that we can. I think we owe it to them and it will be forthcoming. Bophuthatswana is now going to be independent. The Transkei is already independent and there are 48 other countries in Africa which South Africa has dealings with in one way or another. Is it not possible to work out a blueprint amongst all these countries for an African economic market in the same way as one has a European Economic Market? I am certain that one can expand the expertise of South Africa deep into Africa if one adopts this approach.

There is no doubt that when Bophuthatswana becomes independent, every South African who is worth his salt will do his utmost to assist the independent State to reach viability as soon as possible. Such encouragement may take the form of this very Bill that we have before us today where certain financial arrangements are made. It is obvious that every South African will go out of his way to continue giving whatever assistance he can to the Tswana people. The West can make an enormous contribution in the form of investments. The West should be encouraged to invest in Bophuthatswana because not only will they benefit by the enormous concessions that are offered to industry in that area, but at the same time they will show enormous benefits on their investments. If the West, and especially America, is genuinely concerned about improving the quality of life …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the “encouragement” before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the financial arrangements of Bophuthatswana. I was just ending off on that particular point by saying that if the West and America would like to see an improvement in the quality of life in the homelands, they should go out of their way to assist these homelands to the best of their ability and they will get a very good return on their investments.

It is obvious that Bophuthatswana will become part of our customs union agreement. I wonder if I could get the hon. the Minister’s attention in regard to this particular point. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister, in regard to the customs union agreement, whether the other partners have been consulted yet in regard to the question of Bophuthatswana becoming a member of the customs union agreement. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us something about that. I shall be glad if he will also tell us what the share of Bophuthatswana will be. If it is undetermined he should tell us whether they are still negotiating.

Today we are transferring assets and money to Bophuthatswana in an effort to make them the masters of their own destiny. They will have the additional responsibilities of an independent State and we have no doubt that they will discharge those responsibilities successfully. The GDP of Bophuthatswana during 1971-’72 amounted to nearly R60 million and by now it is obviously far greater. Income earned by de facto Bantu residents and migrant workers amounted to R26,8 million in 1960 and increased to R163,4 million in 1973. The per capita income of the people of Bophuthatswana rose from R58 per annum in 1960 to R165 per annum in 1973.1 am certain that the figure is even greater now and I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will let us have that figure. I am sure that since these figures were given to us, there has been a vast improvement. We on this side of the House would like, on behalf of the SAP, to wish Bophuthatswana a most successful and a prosperous future. May their very great expectations come to fruition at all times. We will not oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that I agree with my friend, the hon. member for Sunnyside, who said that the way in which the hon. member for Yeoville had supported the Bill was really not the way in which one ought to support a Bill. Or perhaps the hon. member opposed it? I am not quite sure. He devoted virtually half of his speech to arguing with the Chair. I find this somehow regrettable. I leave the matter at that.

†I should like to thank the hon. members of the House who supported the Bill. I think it is an important measure. I am not so sure that I see it simply as a question of aid. I see it rather as a continuation of the financing of a people who up to now still form part of the Republic, but who are shortly going to be independent. Obviously no responsible South African Government is simply going to cut them adrift. We are therefore continuing to make provision for the usual type of financing of the new country when it becomes independent.

*I think the hon. member for Ermelo quite rightly pointed out the preferential financial basis on which Bophuthatswana is to become independent. It will indeed be a preferential basis and it was purposely so arranged by the South African Government. I think it is a wise move to do it this way.

†The hon. member for Yeoville spoke a great deal about viability, but I am not going to involve myself with that now. May I just, however, draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the average per capita income of Bophuthatswana is in fact higher than that of the Transkei. It compares favourably with the Transkei, and indeed very favourably with a fairly long list of African countries, many of which have been independent for quite some time whilst this homeland has yet to become independent. I think one must keep a sense of perspective.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister to give us the figures for the per capita income of Bophuthatswana and of the Transkei?

The figure I have for the per capita income of Bophuthatswana is R192. That of the Transkei is approximately R170.

That is not the figure for the Transkei.

Well, that is the figure I have had given to me officially.

Is that GDP or GNP?

The hon. member for Yeoville asked various questions on matters of detail. With all due respect, I am not quite sure that some of those questions are all that relevant to the discussion of this particular Bill. He spoke of the question of mining arrangements, arrangements with private, non-government mining institutions or enterprises. I do not think I am called upon to give him chapter and verse there. What I do find very interesting, however, is that the hon. member should have asked me about detailed mining arrangements, the investment corporation, the railways and the possibility of a double taxation agreement when I have here an extremely well-drawn-up document, a document which I find very impressive. I am referring to Bophuthatswana Independence: Status of Bophuthatswana Bill, 1977— Proposed Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and Bophuthatswana. This has been made available, I am told, to the Opposition parties.

Those things are not in there.

Are they not?

Show me where they are.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I am called upon to be dictated to on how I should reply in this hon. House. The hon. member for Yeoville is one member of this House who probably speaks a good deal more than the substance of his talks would justify. I shall answer as I see fit. Otherwise the hon. member can go without an answer. I do not intend wasting my time or the time of the House. This know-all hon. member for Yeoville, this man who yesterday so far forgot himself that he could take me to task for smiling in the House …

All right; carry on.

… tells me there is nothing here. Why does he not look at the contents of this document? If he does so, he will find here a whole series of agreements bearing on the S.A. Railways and others. He can shake his head as much as he likes. He had the temerity to say the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs’ head would fall off—I do not think his will fall off, because it is much too hard. In this document there are agreements in relation to railways, mining, double taxation, etc. There are a whole lot of agreements in this document and, Sir, with respect, I do not think it is my task to have to deal with those detailed matters. If the hon. member wants to know what the position is in regard to the railways, there is an agreement that the S.A. Railways will continue to operate their services on their own account and, as regards buses, certain bus services will be made over to Bophuthatswana in due course. Furthermore, Bophuthatswana will have its own investment corporation within a short time. It is all in the document.

Sir, I think the hon. member for Walmer adopted an entirely constructive approach to the whole question of Bophuthatswana in Africa. He asked what the chances were of an African Economic Market, at least among certain countries of Africa. I think this is clearly something for the future. I think that Bophuthatswana, Transkei and other countries in Southern Africa, as they become independent, will wish to develop and cultivate the most favourable terms with their neighbours and with countries further afield, as South Africa does. I certainly think there is a very promising prospect for a constructive and valuable market coming into being in due course. However, here again I think I am probably stretching the relevance of my reply to some extent.

I think that is really all I can say. Let me just add that I believe that we must compare like with like. How can Bophuthatswana be compared with a country like the Republic of South Africa or with any other developed or largely developed country? One must compare like with like. I think that this is what the hon. member was trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will reply to the Customs Union aspect I raised?

Yes. Bophuthatswana is of course not in the Customs Union agreement with the so-called BLS countries and ourselves. In the case of Transkei we have organized a similar kind of arrangement on that model. It is a question for the future as to when the Transkei will formally come in, and the same sort of approach will apply here.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister will know what our attitude was during the Second Reading of this Bill. We took exception to the wide wording of the clause which amends section 44 of the Prisons Act. During the Committee Stage we had a fairly lengthy argument with the hon. the Minister on this point. The hon. member for Sandton, who unfortunately cannot be here today, put our objections very clearly to the hon. the Minister, and the hon. member for Durban North did the same during the Second Reading. I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat those arguments. The hon. the Minister did see the reason for our objections. We felt that as the clause was worded it went far wider in its implications than the hon. the Minister himself intended. He has said that he will look at this clause to see whether something cannot be done to bring it back into perspective.

For that reason there is no point in my advancing further arguments, but as the Bill has not been changed and our objections remain, we believe that the courts will interpret this clause rather differently from the hon. the Minister’s intention. As the wording remains the same, we shall register our objections at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely correct that I said that I would give the matter further consideration and that if it appeared that an amendment was necessary I would have it effected in the Other Place. At this stage, however, I am still of the opinion that we are correct, and I content myself with that.

Question agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill is purely a consolidating measure and in terms of Standing Order No. 81a certificate has been submitted to the effect that the Bill re-enacts existing law without amending it.

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me to add that this is an historic occasion on which we are about to place the Liquor Act of 1928, which has been amended on 38 occasions, on the Statute Book in a consolidated form, particularly in view of the fact that it will henceforth be available in a much more easily understandable form.

I should also like to express my sincere thanks to those officials of the Department of Justice who were involved in the consolidation for the mammoth task they have completed in record time.

Mr. Speaker, this being, as the hon. the Minister has said, merely a consolidating measure, it contains no new provisions and is merely a rearrangement of the existing provisions in a more convenient form. Consequently, we shall not oppose the Bill at Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the PRP is the same as the attitude expressed by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and we have nothing further to say.

Mr. Speaker, we should like to pay tribute to the officials involved in this enormous task of consolidation. We shall not oppose this measure.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the objection that we on this side of the House have against this measure has, I think, been fairly clearly put during the earlier parts of the debate. As far as we are concerned, we neither agree with the concept contained in clause 1 of the Bill and which we think is not an acceptable proposition, nor do we believe the discretion imposed in clause 2 should be imposed. Therefore we will vote against the Third Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches also have our problems with this Bill. We will have to indicate our opposition to the Bill by voting against it at Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we indicated at Second Reading that we would support this Bill. We dealt with our reasons for supporting the Bill when we discussed it at Second Reading.

The expansion of Escom is absolutely vital to the infrastructure of South Africa. The amount estimated by Escom to be spent on capital requirements until 1985 will be approximately R15 billion. This is an enormous amount, and this is a most important Bill, one that the official Opposition must have studied in great depth. The official Opposition came to the conclusion to vote for this Bill in the Other Place, and yet here in this House they came to the conclusion to oppose the Bill. The official Opposition was either right in the Other Place or they were wrong here, or vice versa.

We are always right; we do not believe you are.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central is right, but not in his head. [Interjections.] However, for the official Opposition to take up a different attitude …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order …

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the remark I have made. [Interjections.] For the official Opposition to take up a different attitude here from the one they took up in the Other Place merely shows the chaos that is reigning in that party. I think …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is what the hon. member for Walmer is saying, relevant to the matter under discussion?

Order! The hon. member for Walmer may allude to proceedings in the Other Place in so far as he can deduce what he says from the official minutes of the Other Place. Proceedings in the Other Place, however, are not the subject matter of this Bill. The hon. member must immediately return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude by saying that the official Opposition adopted a Gerdener approach here and a Kowie Marais approach in the Other Place. [Interjections.] Naturally the PRP followed suit. That was part of their joint strategy.

I asked the hon. the Minister at Second Reading whether he was going to refer the R24 million luxury staff headquarters of Escom to the investigating committee for comment. The public, in these difficult times, are most perturbed about this sort of expenditure, and I would like the hon. the Minister to reassure us on this matter. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that I read about this in the Press. Of course, I do not accept everything I read in the Press. I try to get further clarification. I often try to do so by placing questions on the Order Paper.

However, I was told that I could not place a question on the Order Paper in regard to this matter because it was dealing with a matter relating to Escom, and Escom was autonomous. In any event, the hon. the Minister has no control over the capital expenditure of Escom. I merely want to make it clear that I tried to verify what I had seen in the Press report by posing a question to the hon. the Minister. If the hon. the Minister does not agree with the Press report, I want him to understand that I go by the information contained in that report. I nevertheless feel that the hon. the Minister has a duty to inform the country why, at these particular times …

Order! What the hon. member for Walmer is discussing now is not relevant to the Bill before the House. [Inteijections.]

Mr. Speaker, I have made my point, but I would like to merely draw your attention to the fact that clause 1 of the BUI does deal with the capital expenditure of Escom. The effect of this Bill will basically be that Escom now has four bites at the cherry in regard to its capital requirements. Firstly, Escom will get a certain portion of its capital from revenue. We hope that this will be limited as far as possible. Secondly, Escom will be able to obtain money from the Treasury. We hope that that too will be limited as far as possible, because we feel that if that is not limited it will impose too much of a burden on the taxpayers of South Africa. Thirdly, Escom can borrow money on the local market. We are of the opinion that Escom will have to carefully assess the position as the maximum amount of money available on the local market is limited, and there are many calls on the local market for money. The last source of funds for Escom is, of course, the foreign markets, and we believe that is where Escom must tap their major resources. We will not oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak at any length on the Third Reading of the Bill. Our views in connection with the Bill were fully put in the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage. I would just like to reiterate, however, that the effect of this Bill is going to be to enable Escom to increase the price of electricity by 14% in order to raise capital for expansion. It is also going to have the effect of allowing Escom to raise the electricity prices by a further 3% in order to establish a fund out of which special arrangements for individual electricity consumers can be taken care of.

In the light of the inflationary situation through which we are going, a situation where prices are 11,5% higher than they were last year, we think that this is a very unwise step to take at the present stage.

In addition, this measure cannot be viewed in isolation. It is part of a pattern which the Government is following of getting its own capital requirements and those for public corporations in a compulsory manner, either by raising tariffs, as in the case of this Bill, or by putting excise duties on petrol, as in the case of Sasol, or by forcing financial institutions and other institutions to invest in Government stock. The Government is protecting itself from the forces of private enterprise, while it is at the same time professing to support the idea of private enterprise. One cannot have it both ways. One has either to support private enterprise, and actively participate in it, or not. One cannot shield oneself from it and support it at the same time. This is exactly what the effect of this Bill is going to be. For that reason and because of the effect it is going to have on the inflation rate, we oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. members have already made known their standpoints in connection with the legislation during the Second Reading debate and during the Committee Stage. I do not intend to hold another long discussion on this. For the sake of the facts, however, I must make a few remarks. The Bill concerns two amendments to the existing legislation. The one does not involve a new principle, but an existing principle. The second creates a new principle.

I should like to talk about the first amendment and address remarks specifically to the hon. member for Constantia. In 1971, with the approval of the hon. member for Constantia, the House accepted the principle that a percentage of the capital requirements of Escom be found by making the price of power higher than the production costs of power. The hon. member will grant me this. The projections in that particular year indicated that should there be a levy of 3% on the outstanding debt of the year, Escom should be able to meet 49% of its capital requirements from tariffs within ten years, i.e. by 1981. The hon. member and other hon. members ought not to argue about principle, but rather about the percentage. What, however, was the argument also raised here this afternoon? Now a principle is involved. If the speech which the hon. member for Constantia made in 1971 means anything, it is that he agreed on this endeavour to enable Escom to obtain at least 49% of its capital requirements from this levy. Even if we had only wanted to try and enable Escom to obtain 49% of its capital requirements from tariffs in the year 1981, on the 1971 projection, this percentage should not have been increased from 3% to 6%, but probably to 14%. The hon. member for Constantia is now arguing with me about the quantum of the clause. It does not enable us to debate with one another in a reasonable way in this House, because if I had to do what the hon. member supported in 1971 concerning what we should do, the increase would have been not 6%, but 14% or more. This could have been the consequence of the hon. member’s own conduct. I do not want to disturb the atmosphere which prevails here, but I want to ask when we will ever be able to argue with one another in a rational way.

What was the rate of inflation in 1971?

That does not matter. The fact remains that Escom itself also has experienced the effect of the rate of inflation. In fact, Escom’s rate of inflation was higher than the average. The hon. member knows this. I do not want to argue with him, but I want to ask that when we discuss these matters, we do so in a reasonable manner. The hon. member must understand, however, that we will quarrel with one another if necessary.

I want to refer to a second matter. Surely there is nobody who is not concerned about the devastating effect of inflation, not only as far as prices are concerned, but as far as the social and political order in the country is concerned. If alternatives had existed, no one would have taken other steps, after all.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North told me that the only cause of our capital problems in the country was the political policy of the Government. I do not want to discuss this now. What, however, does the hon. member for Yeoville say? He says that our problems are due to the political situation in Southern Africa. All I want to ask once again, is whether we cannot then decide on what our standpoint is.

The hon. member for Walmer criticized the Escom building. The hon. member for Johannesburg North did so in possibly even stronger terms than the hon. member for Walmer. What is the criticism? Hon. members ask whether we can afford such luxurious buildings now, in the present circumstances, when there are capital problems. I am being attacked now because I said that we should live within our means and that we should not import goods while the same goods are manufactured locally. The Government is now being considered the greatest scapegoat in this regard. It does not help the hon. member for Walmer to tell me that he tried to put a question on the Order Paper, because if his conclusion as regards what happened is correct, the answer which he obtained was that he would not be allowed to do so since I do not have any control over Escom. This hon. member is a lawyer. How can he call me to account if I do not even have control over Escom?

You appointed an investigation committee.

That is not the point. After all, the hon. member is used to coming to my office, asking for information and getting it. Is that not true?

Yes.

After all, the hon. member did not come to me in connection with the Escom building and tell me that he could not get the facts in Parliament and that I should provide them to him. Is this not correct? Why has the hon. member learned a bad habit, and who is he competing with?

He should be ashamed of himself.

I think so too. [Interjections.] I condemn the wastage of capital in the public and private sector. There must be no doubt about this. My record in this regard supports my standpoint because as far as Government corporations are concerned, therefore Escom too, I have not only been looking at their financial structures and financial policies now for the first time. I began doing so long ago. Hon. members are implying in their criticism that we had supposedly made the decision on this building now, under these critical circumstances. This is not true. The Opposition is propagating a misconception here. They are trying to be wise after the event now.

That was not my statement.

Please give me a chance now. It is on record that during the discussion of my vote, I said that the Government also made mistakes as far as its expenditure was concerned, but to suggest that the decision on this specific building was taken now, is not true. The decision to erect the building was taken as long ago as in 1969. Hon. members must remember that we were at the peak of economic prosperity then.

Deal with the matter in full now.

I am going to deal with it in full. The contract to erect the building was signed in 1972, and the hon. member will remember that in 1974 we had the highest ever real growth rate in this country, namely 7,2%. I am not excusing the luxury, but I reject the suggestion that the decision in connection with erecting a luxurious building—which is being blown up out of proportion now—was taken in conditions of low economic activity.

There never should be luxury.

I am coming to that. I can show the hon. member buildings which he asked for when he was still a MPC, buildings which are as luxurious as can be. If the hon. member wants me to give him a list, I shall do so, because I was a MEC then. The hon. member must not forget his past; I remember it well. The hon. member attacked me about this building. I do not want to suggest that he could have not been more modest, although I think that he could have been more modest. If we had to take the decision today and I were to have been responsible for a decision like this, it would not have been taken. Let us make a few comparisons now. The hon. member for Johannesburg North stood up there in his arrogance and said that he was involved with fairly large businesses—this is the only truth in his statement—but that he did not know of any comparable buildings in the private sector. The cost of this Megawatt building is R299 per sq. metre. The construction costs of the customs building which is being built in Cape Town for the department, amount to R287 per square metre.

I do not have to tell the hon. member how the building costs on the Rand compare with those in the Cape. The cost of the new Supreme Court building which is being built in Johannesburg amount to R327 per square metre. According to information at my disposal—and I want to place on record that I have not yet checked this, although I have tried—the building costs of the Sanlam building in Johannesburg amount to R400 per square metre. The buildings costs of the Standard Bank building which was completed in 1970 amounted to R580 per square metre. The buildings costs of the BP centre in Cape Town were R400 per square metre. The norm which the Department of Public Works accepts, is R330 to R350 per square metre. What do the costs of Escom look like now if they are tested against these norms?

You would not have built now.

Of course not. These buildings, however, were completed. I am just trying to reply to the argument that there is a Government body which takes liberties which a careful businessman would not. Do hon. members know what the floor space per person in this building is, including the circulation space? It is 150 square feet, if I remember correctly. Do hon. members know how big this is? Hon. members are talking about a sauna, however. Are there not sauna baths in this building? Who uses them the most? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Johannesburg North spoke about the imported components of the building. He is the last one to talk about this. He has been imported and we could manage without him. Do hon. members know what the imported components in this building are? They make up 4%. A story appeared in the newspaper, however, that the provision of furniture in this building was the most expensive contract granted. The amount which the newspaper quoted—without trying to check it—was exactly 100% more than what it cost. I am the last one to suggest that everything is quite in order. On the contrary, I myself took steps to check whether this was so. For the sake of truth, for the sake of this Parliament and the image of its members among the public, I feel compelled to say that it will be as well if we can keep to the facts in our debating.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—98: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. D.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Tonder J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: J. P. C. Le Roux, N. F. Treumicht, C. V. Van der Merwe and W. L. Van der Merwe.

Noes—36: Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. 1; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned on Tuesday I was giving an explanation of clause 16. I shall now continue.

Certain residential areas in the Republic are subject to periodic flooding for instance, and earthquakes have occurred. It is therefore deemed necessary in the public interest that the Minister should have the power, for the purposes of the Bill, to have the resultant circumstances investigated where necessary.

Clause 17:

This clause lies at the heart of this legislation. It is the clause in terms of which the Minister of Economic Affairs, on the recommendation of the Council of the S.A. Bureau of Standards, will promulgate compulsory national building regulations which will contain minimum health, safety and building standards.

†Clause 18:

Mr. Speaker, it can be foreseen that due to certain circumstances, local or otherwise, the need will arise for the granting of exemptions from the prescribed national building regulations. In this regard the necessary powers are being vested in—

1. (a) the Minister in terms of clause 17(4), after he has consulted the Council of the SABS;
2. (b) a local authority, except that a deviation or exemption from a national building regulation regarding the strength or stability of buildings cannot be granted by a local authority except under delegated powers by the SABS; and
3. (c) the Council of the SABS, who may permit deviations or grant exemptions from national building regulations relating to the strength or stability of buildings.

Clause 19:

This clause empowers the Minister to prohibit the use of certain building methods or materials if he is satisfied, after consultation with the Council of the SABS, that the application of the methods or materials concerned is not in the public interest or that it is dangerous to life or property.

Clause 20:

This clause empowers the Minister to make the regulations required to regulate the procedure, duties and functions, and the cost of the review boards to be appointed in terms of the provisions of clause 9 to which I have already referred. The clause also makes provision for sanctions.

Clause 21:

In terms of clause 21 certain powers are brought within the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts. Experience has shown that to certain large construction concerns a fine is no deterrent whatsoever. What is needed is a speedy and inexpensive legal process to terminate on application by the local authority any building activity which does not comply with the prescribed standards.

Clauses 22 and 23:

These clauses determine that the Bill does not in any way derogate from the powers of a local authority to prescribe rates and taxes and they furthermore limit the liability of a local authority in cases where damage or loss may occur due to the erection or demolition of a building which erection or demolition has been approved or ordered by a local authority in terms of the Bill.

Clauses 24 and 25:

Clause 24 lays down a maximum penalty for offences in terms of the Bill for which penalties have not been prescribed specifically and clause 25 creates a presumption.

In discussing the principle of clause 25 it is necessary to refer to the underlying principles of the Bill. For that purpose reference should be had to the various enabling provisions contained in clause 17, which are all aimed at setting standards. Those provisions in their turn are to be complemented by the provisions of subsections 17(6) and (7). The whole approach, in short, will be that the S.A. Bureau of Standards by means of codes of practice, standard specifications or compulsory standard specifications, as the case may be, will, where necessary, define the standard or quality of materials, design or workmanship.

Now it is obvious that without a presumption clause such as clause 25 such standard or quality prescribed in the national building regulations in terms of clause 17, cannot be enforced successfully.

Turning now to the purely legal procedural side, it will be apparent that all that is sought to be provided here is that once the necessary codes of practice, etc., have been prepared it will not be necessary to prove an alleged failure to comply with the relevant code of practice, etc., but the accused will be entitled to rebut the presumption by showing that he did in fact comply or did more than was required in the code of practice, etc.

In conclusion, therefore, the honest law-abiding person will know exactly what is required of him, while on the other hand the dishonest person will no longer be safe in the knowledge that his shoddy or defective workmanship can usually only be shown up by demolishing the building—a very unlikely event.

Clause 26:

This clause determines that all fines for offences or estreated bail in terms of this Bill shall be paid to the local authority concerned, except in the case of penalties arising from the functions of the revision board, which penalties will accrue to the State.

Clause 27:

This clause empowers the Minister in cases where local authorities fail to apply the provisions of this Bill to arrange in consultation with the council of the S.A. Bureau of Standards and the Administrator concerned that the law will be enforced by the Administrator or another person appointed by the Minister.

Clause 28:

This clause empowers the Minister, the council of the S.A. Bureau of Standards and a local authority to delegate with certain exceptions their respective powers in terms of this Bill with a view to ensuring the effective administration of its provisions.

Clause 29:

This clause provides for the repeal of any law relating to the making of building regulations by local authorities and also contains a transition clause for the continued application of existing building regulations until such time as a full range of national building regulations are issued in terms of the Bill.

Clauses 30, 31 and 32 contain consequential amendments to the present Standards Act, 1962.

Clauses 33 and 34:

Clause 33 determines that the Bill shall also apply to South West Africa and clause 34 contains the short title.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I wish to point out once again that the Government has been requested for legislation of this nature by various interests. The history in this connection can in the first instance be taken back to 1946, as I have indicated, when the Institute of Construction Engineers submitted a request to the S.A. Bureau of Standards for the drafting of model regulations on a national basis.

Secondly, a recommendation was made to the Government by the Continuation Committee on the Implementation of the Programme Against Inflation that compulsory national standard building regulations be introduced, as a consequence of which I requested the S.A. Bureau of Standards to prepare a draft Bill.

On receipt of the draft Bill it was published in the Government Gazette of 14 July 1976 so as to enable all interested parties to submit their comments and suggestions on the proposed measure. This procedure certainly provided the widest possible basis of consultation and numerous submissions have been received from all and sundry.

Furthermore, I met the four Administrators and their advisers on 14 October 1976 and again on 7 February 1977, on which occasions the provisions of the Bill were explained and discussed to the satisfaction of the Administrators and the officials concerned.

For the purpose of formulating the proposed standard building regulations file Bureau of Standards some time ago established various regional committees and a guiding committee consisting of all interested parties in order to consider recommendations for such regulations. These regional committees will be requested also to assist with the formulation of the proposed national standard building regulations. Furthermore, these regulations will, as provided for in clause 17(3), be published in the first instance for public information and comments and will only be put into operation in terms of the said clause after objections and suggestions which may be received by my department and the Bureau of Standards have been considered.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, just before we adjourned for lunch I came to the end of my Second Reading speech. At this point I just want to add that I am prepared to accept all the amendments on the Order Paper, except the first amendment by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I shall explain at a later stage why I am unable to accept this amendment. However, the other amendments are all accepted.

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is such a pity that the hon. the Minister had to have his Second Reading speech interrupted twice by an adjournment and that he had—if I may be permitted to say it—to rush through his speech in the way he was forced to do, especially in view of the history of this Bill and of all the developments which preceded it. I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for circularizing this speech beforehand so that we could have a look at it and study it in advance. It is obvious from what has been said, that the preparation of the Bill is spread over many years and that it is the culmination of many hours of investigation by many people. It is clear that a vast amount of work has gone into it The effect of this Bill is going to be considerable. First of all we will find that, once it is promulgated, we are going to have a uniformity in building standards in South Africa which I and other hon. members in these benches, believe is a good thing.

I would like to stress that the way I interpret this Bill, this uniformity in building standards is not going to be at the expense of architectural freedom, as some people have interpreted it. I believe architects will still be able to use their skills, their training and their ingenuity in designing the types of buildings which they wish to design. However, there is going to be a standardization of actual building methods. There will also, I believe, be an improvement in the standard and the quality of buildings. I do not think anyone can disagree with that. I believe this Bill will also result in certain economies. I think as far as the designers are concerned, they are going to find that they will have to work within certain ground rules or specifications, and I believe there should be quite a reduction in the design time on the part of designers.

I believe that manufacturers of building materials will also incur certain savings and economies because of the standardization which will result from this Bill.

If this is the case, I believe that these things are needed, and therefore I am sure that there is considerable support for this Bill in certain quarters, especially in respect of certain aspects of this Bill. While I am sure that there are some local authorities who might have certain reservations about this measure, primarily I think as a result of the discipline which this Bill is going to impose on them, I do believe that in general the local authorities will accept and are in favour of this Bill.

However, we in these benches, while we support the technical aspects of this Bill and the need for it, cannot support the Bill at Second Reading, because of clause 25, the presumption clause. I would like briefly to refer to this. In this particular clause all that has to happen is for an allegation to be placed on the charge sheet that such an accused person so failed in respect of standard or quality of material, design or workmanship. That allegation is then sufficient proof that he is guilty of this charge unless the contrary is proved. We in these benches believe in the old legal dictum which states that a man is innocent until he has been proven guilty. I can appreciate the State’s problems in this respect, in that the State might, no doubt, in certain circumstances of a building failure, find certain difficulties in proving a man guilty. However, by the same token an accused person could have difficulty in proving himself innocent. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister how he is going to determine exactly who the accused is. This is not a very simple matter. If a building, or a part of it, for example the roof truss of a building collapses, how is the State going to know which person they should accuse? Is it the designer whose design was faulty? The local authority should have plans available to see whether he was at fault. Is it the supplier of the truss? Today many trusses are prefabricated, and the State will have to determine whether it was the materials in the truss which were faulty. Was it, in fact, the builder himself who erected the truss incorrectly? We believe that in alleging guilt on the part of any particular person the State must surely have done a rather intensive investigation into the failure and as such they should know whether the man is guilty or not. It is because of this that we are going to oppose the Bill at the Second Reading.

There are a number of other clauses to which the hon. the Minister has referred on which we have amendments printed on the Order Paper. Those will be discussed in due course. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise a number of points which are causing concern amongst people who are going to be affected by this Bill. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give answers to these points which I am going to put to him. I sincerely hope that his answers will put these people’s minds at rest.

The first point concerns clause 1, which is the definitions clause. I refer to the word “building”. As it now stands, the definition of “building” is extremely broad. The way I read it, it includes a dog kennel, a wendy-house or even a tent one might erect in the garden. It includes a flower-box or a pergola and it would also include a temporary plastic swimming pool which one may erect during the summer season. It also, I believe, includes a temporary building which a construction company may erect on its building site. This is causing much concern in certain people’s minds, but after studying the Bill and certain remarks made by people who are involved with it, I assume that these sorts of things are going to be exempted in the regulations when they are eventually drawn up by the hon. the Minister.

That is the correct answer.

I am very pleased to hear that and I am sure that, having said that, the hon. the Minister has now put at rest the concern in the minds of certain people.

The second point that I would like to raise is in respect of clause 7, and in particular clause 7(1)(b)(ii). This provision relates to the application to a local authority for the approval of building plans. According to this provision, a local authority can refuse approval of the plans if it is satisfied that the building to which the application in question relates, is to be erected in such manner or will be of such nature or appearance that the area in which it is to be erected will probably or in fact be disfigured thereby or that the building may be unsightly or objectionable, and so on.

Although I accept the clause in principle, I personally question clause 7(1)(b)(ii)(bbb), which provides that the plans may not be approved if the building will probably or in fact be unsightly or objectionable. I question this because I believe this will be a purely subjective assessment on the part of the local authorities. For this reason I have placed an amendment on the Order Paper. I shall move that amendment.

Confusion and concern has arisen in some quarters in respect of this clause when it is read in conjuction with clause 10. Clause 10 stipulates that the local authority, having already granted permission for the erection of a building, can in fact prevent the builder or the owner from continuing with his building, if in the opinion of the local authority the building is being or is to be erected in such a manner that it will not be in the interests of good health, hygiene or that it will be unsightly and objectionable, etc.

Clause 10 refers to the actual process of construction.

I was going to ask that question. The wording of clause 10 is identical to that of clause 7. I want to get it clear in my own mind and for the record that this clause only applies if the constructor, the construction company or the builder is creating an unsightly or unhealthy situation. It has nothing to do with the actual building which has already been approved of.

It refers to the manner of erection of the building.

Thank you. That has now been cleared up. If that were not the case, then this whole concern which people are now showing, would be exacerbated if this clause were read in conjunction with clause 23, which indemnifies the local authority from any losses on the part of the builder. If this interpretation had been correct, financial losses would have been incurred particularly in the case of building societies holding bonds over properties.

Thirdly and finally, I am particularly concerned about clause 17. The hon. the Minister referred to it earlier today. Clause 17 empowers the hon. the Minister to make regulations on the recommendation of the council. Clause 17(1 )(d) empowers him to make regulations regarding the strength and stability of buildings. In clauses 17(6) and 17(7) reference is made to codes of practice and to specifications. If I read it correctly, this means that the council of the S.A. Bureau of Standards will recommend to the hon. the Minister certain codes of practice and specifications with which the owner of the building and also the builder must comply. This in itself is acceptable at first glance. However, the concern which is being expressed, primarily by highly qualified consulting engineers, is that unless there is close consultation between the Minister, the council, the engineering institutions and the architectural institutions, the consulting engineers themselves could in many instances be hamstrung by these regulations.

I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that codes of practice are usually based on minimum standards which are devised mainly in the interests of safety and also to serve as guidelines to designers and to engineers. However, codes of practice are mainly considered to serve as a guide to a design engineer. I accept that most engineers do use these codes of practice. However, as a registered professional engineer I believe I am entitled to say that if an engineer wants to take an easy way out or if he just wants to play safe in terms of this Act, he can decide to adhere to the letter of the code of practice which may be referred to in this particular Act. By so doing, legally he has complied with the terms of the Act; as far as the safety of the building is concerned he can rest assured that the building will in fact be safe. This does not necessarily mean that the engineer—I would like the hon. the Minister to listen because I have spoken to the engineering institutions in this respect—is using his expert know-how to best advantage, especially in the light of new developments and research which may have resulted since the codes of practice were drawn up. Codes of practice are drawn up by committees of engineers and sometimes they are drawn up by the engineering societies or engineering institutions themselves. I am sure that the South African Bureau of Standards will set up a committee of engineering institutions to draw up certain codes of practice. This is done overseas and in South Africa today and I am quite sure the hon. the Minister himself is going to find that he is using codes of practice which have been drawn up, for instance, by British institutions of engineering although in time, no doubt, the S.A. Bureau of Standards will produce their own. The point I am trying to make is that codes of practice vary from place to place. They are used primarily as a guide to the design engineer. I have it on very good authority that had the columns in the H. F. Verwoerd building been designed according to certain codes of practice they would have been much heavier, much uglier and more expensive than the ones we now see standing there. Similarly, in the case of the Leo Marquard Hall at the University of Cape Town, had the foundations of that building been built according to the code of practice for foundations, it would have cost R200 000 more than the actual cost. This saving resulted from the use of engineering skills by a highly qualified design engineer.

These problems are causing concern to the design engineers. They feel that they do not want to be hamstrung by bureaucracy. These are professional people; they have their own reputation at stake and if there is a failure of a building which they have designed, they have to answer for the consequences before a formal board of inquiry. I very much appreciate the fact that the hon. the Minister is going to say that in terms of clause 18(2) he will permit the council of the S.A. Bureau of Standards to allow a local authority to permit a deviation from a code of practice and other regulations as these relate to the strength and stability of buildings. This loophole in the legislation will enable a consulting engineer to design the building as he thinks it should be designed. What we are concerned about in this regard, is that this whole exercise should not be bogged down in red tape, because it means that every time an engineer makes a very complicated design or whenever he designs a building in a manner which might be contrary to a particular code of practice, he now has to go through the local authority to the S.A. Bureau of Standards in order to get an exemption. Because of this I believe there should be far more consultation between the engineering societies and the hon. the Minister himself. I appreciate that the council of the S.A. Bureau of Standards might, and in fact does, appoint engineering institutions to its various committees to draw up these codes. These institutions per se are not party to the recommendations which were made to the hon. the Minister in terms of the provisions of clause 17. The institutions might object to or disagree with the recommendations which the hon. the Minister may receive from the S.A. Bureau of Standards. I personally would have preferred to see the engineering institutions placed on the council of the S.A. Bureau of Standards in respect of any decisions which will be applied as a result of the implementation of this legislation. I am aware that there are three engineers on the council of the S.A. Bureau of Standards at present, but knowing one of them—it happens to be the General Manager of the S.A. Railways—I am quite sure that I am correct in saying that these are extremely busy men and that they will not be able to give their serious thought to this problem. I do not intend to belabour this point, but I hope the hon. the Minister appreciates the reasons for this concern. Ideally, before any regulations are agreed to by the hon. the Minister I believe he should, through consultation, get approval from the engineering institutions. There is a great need for consultation and I have an amendment on the Order Paper with regard to clause 17 of the Bill.

I am accepting that amendment.

I am very pleased to hear that. At least it is now being placed on record as to why that amendment has been accepted. Regrettably, because of the reasons I have already stated in regard to clause 25 of the Bill, I am afraid we are not going to be able to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear from the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that they do not have any objections to the principle of the Bill as such. He said that their objections only concern clause 25 of the Bill. According to the long title of the Bill, the aim of the Bill is “to provide for promotion of uniformity in the law relating to the erection of buildings in the areas of jurisdiction of local authorities; for the prescribing of building standards”, etc. No one can really find fault with this. Indeed, if one had to look up the history of all the attempts which have been made in the past to obtain more standardization and rationalization for building regulations in South Africa, I think that the House should really welcome the Bill with open arms.

The SABS is one of the bodies of which we in the Republic of South Africa can be proud. It has built up a world-wide reputation through its standards and its knowledge of standards. The bureau sent a questionnaire to 234 bodies and persons and 81 reacted to it. Of those 81, 77 were in favour of national building regulations. This give one an impression of the degree of support which the Bill enjoys. In South Africa there are four provincial administrations as well as the administration of South West Africa, which administers that territory. There are 622 local authorities which deal with building plans, building regulations and the supervision thereof. Therefore it is necessary to have a central body in authority to co-ordinate them. Naturally, one has some individuality in every local authority and in every province, because each has its own view on matters. That is why it is necessary for there to be a national body to co-ordinate and standardize. If this standardization had only one good effect, i.e. a saving in building costs, and if that saving should be 2%, this would involve a saving of R57 million. In our present economic situation, it is only right that we should put everything into our efforts to save as much as possible. Nor is it a case of us expecting savings and standardization to come from the private sector alone, because the Government itself will be subjected to the regulations. Therefore, in terms of the legislation, the Government will also have to take the regulations into account. During another debate today we heard that luxuries sometimes occur. To me, the issue is not so much the luxuriousness, but rather the functional effectiveness of a building. I have no objection to the decoration of a building so long as it is only functional. I think that we in South Africa are really decorating things beyond our means, whereas we do not always keep the functional aspects in mind. Hon. members do not have to go and look at any specific building. They need only drive through the more wealthy suburbs of South Africa and they will see that there is large-scale competition to erect ever finer buildings, buildings which are really not always functional. In that regard, therefore, we can do wonders by standardizing.

I also want to move a few amendments in the Committee Stage. They concern a few clauses of the Bill, and I shall make suggestions and argue about this later on.

In conclusion I want to say that I appreciate the fact that the Opposition is in favour of the legislation in principle. As far as the technical objections of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti are concerned, I just want to say that the National Government has a reputation of always consulting with interested parties, and that it did so in this case as well. It consulted with the local authorities and the provincial administrations and it will also consult with the technical people, with the engineers and architects. Therefore, the Opposition need not fear that proper consultation will not take place in the best interests of South Africa in this case.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that in a sense I am probably going to disappoint the hon. member for Germiston District, because I would like to say at the outset that although members in these benches are not opposed to the principle of uniformity, of standardization, in respect of building regulations and building standards, there ate certain aspects which we regard as being unsatisfactory. It is a Bill which contains many unsatisfactory provisions, although it is an interesting Bill with an interesting history. When it was first presented to the Senate about 60 amendments were moved. This would indicate to us that it was a Bill that had been rather hastily drawn up, drawn up without due consideration having been given to all the ramifications thereof.

At present the situation is that we have a voluntary set of regulations drawn up by the SABS. Both the National Building Research Institute and the SABS attempt to lay down certain standards, but these are voluntary standards. This Bill gives the central Government power to force local authorities to adhere to certain standards instead of leaving them to choose what use they can make of the SABS and the National Building Research Institute. The attitude of this party is clear. We agree that there should be considerable encouragement towards standardization, but we also believe that the final acceptance or rejection of suggested standards should lie with the local authorities concerned and not with the central Government. We believe that in this Bill we see another example of the desire on the part of the Government to centralize control in everything. Pretoria is to have a say in regard to every aspect of our lives. We believe that good government is government by consent, not government by force. We said before, and I think that we should say it again, that what is good for Pretoria is not necessarily good for everywhere else in South Africa. What is good for Pretoria is not necessarily good for Soweto, for example. Centralization of control is undesirable because it forces one set of standards on all while at the same time extending the gigantic, monolithic bureaucracy which has already become so unwieldy that it is sapping the life-blood of our economy. Any political philosophy which encourages freedom of individuals and communities cannot accept central dictatorship. Furthermore we believe that control by a central bureaucracy tends to be not only inefficient but also very costly.

This Bill will not receive our support, because we as a party believe in devolution of power while the Bill constitutes an unwarranted diminution of the power of provincial administrations and local authorities in favour of the central Government. We believe that this Bill has been hastily put together, and we feel a great deal more consideration should be given before we take a major step towards centralization in matters which could well be handled at local level. There are many details of the Bill which are unsatisfactory. The hon. member for Amanzimtoti discussed clause 1 and we got a answer from the hon. the Minister in the case, viz. about the wideness of the definition of a building. The answer, however, was not entirely satisfactory, because if in the framework of the regulations there is going to be such a wide area where regulations can differ, then what is the reason for standardization on a national level? We have local authorities already which can regulate according to local conditions. If the regulations framed under this legislation are going to do exactly the same thing, what then is the necessity for central control?

Let us take another clause with which we are not satisfied, viz. clause 2(3). This clause provides that the legislation shall not bind the State. Clause 2(4) provides that economic considerations, necessity or expediency can exempt the State either generally or in any particular case. We can see no justification for this at all. Admittedly, when it comes to emergency defence works, this point of view could be defended.

Could you just repeat what subsection you are referring to?

I am referring to subsections (3) and (4) of clause 2. This has to do with the State not being bound by the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. Then, as I have said, subsection (4) provides that economic considerations, necessity or expediency can exempt the State either generally or in any particular case. This is very wide and we cannot see any justification for it at all, except if it is related to, for example, emergency defence works. By including these provisions in the Bill, the hon. the Minister is in effect admitting that special cases should be given special consideration. In our view, however, this does not necessarily apply only to buildings built by the State. On a lesser scale special consideration has to be given to a vast variety of different special cases. The function of a local authority should be to judge the merits of each case within the framework of its own special local knowledge, and special local knowledge is something a central Government can never have.

The hon. the Minister spoke of clause 17 as laying down certain minimum standards. I stress the word “minimum”, the word he used if I heard him correctly. If these are really minimum standards, why should the State not be bound by them? I would say that there would be a good case for saying that a Bill of this nature should apply in particular to the State because public money should be well spent on buildings which should meet certain minimum requirements. We cannot agree that there should be any exemptions at all.

Another clause I find a little extraordinary is clause 4(4) which provides for a fine of R100 per day if a person erects a building illegally. This does not appear to refer to the scale of the transgression at all. The size of the crime seems to be immaterial, since the fine will be R100 per day irrespective of the crime. This puzzles me a great deal. Surely, when one sets down penalties of this nature—one person may build a dog kennel which is not according to the specifications while another might start a major excavation for a large building—there should be some sort of fluctuation in the scale of penalties applicable.

On a kennel the fine is 50c per day.

That may be so, but in the Bill before us there is no provision for a fine of 50c per day in the case of a dog kennel. A fine of R100 per day is laid down in the Bill.

But that is a maximum.

Yes, that serves as the maximum. However, there are very large buildings with which builders have gone ahead in the past without obtaining the necessary permission in respect of the plans. In a case like that R100 per day would be absolute peanuts as any sort of penalty. I do believe provision should be made for greater latitude. It must be possible to make the punishment fit the crime, which it does not do at the moment.

If you move an amendment to increase the penalty, I shall give consideration to your amendment.

The hon. the Minister says he will consider an amendment. Let me thank him for that.

Clause 5 deals with the people who will be qualified to serve as building inspectors. In this regard I should like to urge that consideration be given to applying high standards and that officers appointed as building inspectors should be officers with qualifications and of a particularly high standard.

Clause 14 is another clause that worries us a great deal. We are concerned at the possibility of a great deal of delay as a result of the bureaucratic process. If plans have been approved at the outset and periodic inspections have given the local authority no cause to take steps, could I suggest to the hon. the Minister that it would administratively be more effective to allow occupation to take place, unless the local authority gives notice to the contrary. At the moment a bureaucratic procedure has to be gone through before anybody can take occupation of a particular property. This gives rise to a strong possibility of delays, and I would therefore like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he might give consideration to allowing occupation. After all, inspections have already taken place.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti has already spoken about clause 17 and expressed many of the reservations which also hon. members in these benches have about this clause. We do not know how regulations can deal with the strength and stability of a building. This can be so complex, technically, that it is almost impossible to lay down standards. Questions involved could be of such a complexity that they would call for the judgment of professional engineers and presumably the department and the local authority are going to have professional engineers who can judge on these standards.

The S.A. Bureau of Standards.

The S.A. Bureau of Standards itself. With every respect to the viewpoint now being expressed by the hon. the Minister, there are so many different structures, involving different standards of professional expertise and different fields of expertise, that if we are going to duplicate this all with engineers, either of the S.A. Bureau of Standards or engineers employed by local authorities, we will be creating a bureaucratic mountain and that will not be satisfactory at all. If the regulations on the other hand deal with general criteria only, they will be totally acceptable. However, if we go into detail, it is going to be difficult. I note that in clause 18(2) exemptions are provided for. That I do accept. But I would urge upon the hon. the Minister that the regulations should be concerned with general criteria, because I believe it will be impossible to go further than that.

When it comes to clause 25, the presumption clause, we must also express our very strong opposition. We do not believe that an accused person should have to prove that the charge is wrong. The hon. the Minister in his introductory speech said that it was almost impossible to prove the guilt of somebody when something had already been built into a building. He said that one could not dismantle a building to prove one’s point. This was the justification for the clause. Equally, this applies to the innocent party as well. They are not likely to be in a position where they can demolish part of the building to prove their innocence, to prove that things were built according to regulations. In this respect, if constant supervision is going to take place by the local authority, it becomes absolutely necessary that the individual’s rights should be looked after and the presumption of guilt should not be included in this Bill. One cannot have a situation where, to prove innocence, the building has to be destroyed. In this respect I am using the same argument the hon. the Minister used in his justification of this clause. At the Committee Stage we shall vote against this clause.

Looking at this Bill in toto, we do believe it is a Bill that has been hastily put together. We believe that there should be further consideration given to it. We would agree with the amendment moved by the party on my right in the Other Place when they suggested that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee. We think this would be very advisable. But on the principle of devolution of power as against centralization, we cannot support the Bill on principle. I would therefore like to move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is of tremendous importance to the construction industry. In fact, in the publication Construction in South Africa of October 1976, the following was said which has a bearing on this legislation—

In other words, there can be no doubt that a Bill providing for national building regulations is needed. However, the Bill itself was amended over 40 times in the Other Place, and there are still further amendments before the House today.

As the hon. the Minister can see from all the amendments handled by him in the Other Place and all the amendments before us today, this is obviously the sort of Bill that should have gone to a Select Committee in the first instance.

If I may, I would like to raise certain matters with the hon. the Minister. Certain experts in this field have given me information and I want to place that information before the hon. the Minister in order to get his point of view on these matters. In the first place I am told that uniformity in the law relating to the erection of buildings is commendable, but the very substantial differences in climatic, social and environmental conditions should be recognized. The experts would like to see private investment in the building industry being encouraged, confidence for investment being created, reasonable returns for the developers being stimulated, unreasonable risks to developers and to the construction industry being eliminated, certain cost stimulation being contained and delays in proceedings and applications being limited. The exercise of the very extensive powers by the authorities is a further point to which they refer. Yet, in terms of clause 23, local authorities are not liable for certain liabilities.

In regard to clause 14, the Bill introduces a certificate of occupancy which, by implication, can only be applied for by building owners, and therefore issued by local authorities after the completion of a building. It could even be delayed after the expiration of the maintenance period. The maintenance period can be anything from three to 12 months after the practical completion of the building. This not only causes unreasonable delays in the occupancy of a completed building, but excludes the possibility of partial occupation of a building. There can also be a wider implication in terms of clause 14. The definition of “building”, for example, includes temporary structures, and could mean the necessity of certificates of occupancy in respect of all kinds of sites, even construction huts.

It might even interfere with the occupation of existing premises to which repairs or alterations are being carried out. The majority of builders are most dependent on the local authorities. Although there is the possibility of an appeal in terms of clause 9, following a successful application, an award by review should not exclude such reapplication in terms of clause 7(5) as is being excluded at present.

The State’s traditional obligation to prove the guilt of an accused seems, in terms of clause 25, not to be applicable to a very vulnerable building construction industry. In other words, the construction industry is not in favour of clause 25. That has already been stated by other hon. members. In terms of clause 2(4), plans of State buildings are only required to be lodged with the local authority for its information. State buildings should comply with town planning requirements in respect of on-site parking and other factors. A typical example of this is the latest post office erected in Cape Road in the suburb of Newton Park, where no parking has been provided for at all to people who have Post Boxes. As a result cars are being double parked in one of the busiest parts of the city at peak traffic hours, and this is creating traffic problems.

I hope that the hon. the Minister agrees that State buildings must comply with town planning regulations of that particular town. The Bill, in clause 7, allows for local authorities to delay the applications for anything up to 90 days. These delays affect the economy of the building. For example, there is a loss in production time, a loss of interest on the mortgage bond, a loss in the cash flows and, in addition, there can be a loss of profits. This problem can be overcome if the hon. the Minister will only reduce the 60 day period to a 30 day period, thereby allowing for a delay of 60 days in total.

In terms of clause 12 an owner can be compelled to make improvements. There may, however, be occasions on which a notice is served on an owner whose land has been frozen or whose land has been served by a notice of expropriation while in both these cases the owner may be reluctant to make improvements, because he never knows whether he will be compensated for the improvements that he makes on the land, never mind the interest on the capital laid out for the improvements.

We would like to see the best possible measures in this vitally important Bill and we therefore think the best way of handling it would be to sent it to a Select Committee. I understand that some major local authorities have serious reservations about the Bill. They feel that there can be no urgent reason for it to be passed this session, because after the Bill has been enacted the national building regulations have to be drawn up and I believe that is going to take a very long time. Their contention is that there is no need for the Bill to be passed this session of Parliament because there is going to be a delay with the building regulations in any event.

What worries them then?

They want to make representations to the Select Committee. They would like to make their views known to the Select Committee, which would assist the hon. the Minister in reframing and redrafting a new Bill. I would like the assurance from the hon. the Minister that when it comes to the national regulations, the maximum publicity will be given to the proposed regulations and that the maximum opportunity will be given to all interested parties to lodge their views with the department in order to ensure that all possible expertise go into drafting the regulations. That would be one way of ensuring that one gets a blueprint in this regard.

Even though we on this side have said that we believe the Bill is necessary, we feel equally strongly that this Bill should go to a Select Committee, and if the hon. the Minister will not accept the proposal that it goes to a Select Committee, we will oppose the Bill. In the circumstances I would like to move as a further amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I shall not deal with the subject of the somewhat surprising attitude of the party seated on my far left in respect of this Bill. I am afraid it has taken us on these benches completely by surprise. I am sure that it has also taken the Government completely by surprise.

However, I do want to deal with the attitude of the PRP, who have moved that this Bill be discharged because it constitutes an unwarranted diminution of the power of provincial administrations and local authorities in favour of the Central Government. For the first time we have before us a Bill which gives teeth to local authorities. We on these benches are going to vote against this Bill. We have stated our position and we are going to vote against it purely because of clause 25. However, in principle we agree with the rest of the Bill. We also note that the hon. the Minister has accepted all amendments with the one exception. So we feel we have done our homework very adequately with regard to this Bill and that we are doing the correct thing. We have acted responsibly on a tremendous amount of evidence which has been placed before us by various professional bodies.

Clause 5 refers to local authorities. [Interjections.] I am not having an argument with those boys about their Select Committee.

Order! The hon. member must refer to other hon. members in this House as hon. members.

I am not going to have an argument with those hon. members who behave like small boys. Clause 5(1) of the Bill clearly stipulates—

How is this taking away the power from the local authority? This is reinforcing the power of the local authority. The following clause refers to the building control officer who will make recommendations to the local authority. He is assisting the local authority in carrying out the provisions of this Bill. As one who has for many, many years been connected with a small local authority, from its inception as a health committee …

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether it is possible for him to give me a definition of a local authority?

That is quite beside the point, but I can give the hon. member a definition of a local authority in Natal. In Natal we have local authorities of various natures. There is a malaria committee, which is the lowest form of a local authority. Then there is a health committee, which represents the next level of local authority. Then there is a town board, a borough and finally a city, of which we have only two in Natal. In Natal there are thus five separate types of local authority. [Interjections.] You sit and think about that. In the smaller local authority, the lower echelon, the third tier of government, which is another definition of a local authority, one has the situation where the smaller authorities are not empowered to introduce for arguments sake, elevation control. There is no way in which they can say they do not want a certain type of building in their little village, because aesthetically it is not the sort of thing they desire. Clause 7(1)(b) is actually now giving teeth to that local authority, because it states—

1. (i) is to be erected in such manner or will be of such nature or appearance that—
   1. (aa) the area in which it is to be erected will probably or in fact be disfigured thereby;
   2. (bb) it will probably or in fact be unsightly or objectionable;
   3. (cc) it will probably or in fact derogate from the value of adjoining or neighbouring properties; …

This has been an argument over the years, i.e. that so often one finds that the small local authority, like a village management board, for instance in the Transvaal, does not have sufficient control over the type of building that is going to be erected in its area. One finds the situation that someone might build a very nice sort of home for himself, somebody else builds an equally nice home two plots away, and then a fellow comes and puts up what is tantamount to being a “pondok” in the middle and gets away with it. Here we have a Bill to ensure that that sort of situation does not arise and therefore, with all respect, I can say that we in these benches completely reject the thought that this Bill constitutes an unwarranted diminution of the power of provincial administrations and local authorities. In this respect only we support the hon. the Minister’s thoughts as expressed in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, one never becomes too old to learn. I have seen the most amazing exhibition here this afternoon. First of all, I find a total incongruity between the standpoint of the official Opposition and that of their colleagues in the Other Place.

That is not correct. [Interjections.]

I do not know why hon. members are so sensitive about it because after all, I am only discussing the history of the Bill. I really cannot understand it because in the Other Place the official Opposition adopted the standpoint of the SAP. [Interjections.] In that regard, I really am having difficulty in making sense of the matter. The official Opposition say they support the legislation, but they object to clause 25 because it contains a presumption. I shall come back to that presently, however. After all, they could introduce an amendment during the Committee Stage of the Bill to repeal the clause in the meantime surely they could support the principle of the legislation. After all, according to the rules of this House, there is nothing to prevent hon. members from repealing provisions of legislation they support if they do not like them. [Interjections.] In all fairness, I gave hon. members on that side of the House the opportunity of stating their case when doing so.

Please do not sit down.

The hon. member for Yeoville is the only hon. member in this House who is always making speeches while seated. I want to suggest that if hon. members of the official Opposition really support the legislation—I have no reason to doubt their motives—then the easiest way to support it is to accept it at Second Reading and then submit an amendment to clause 25 during the Committee Stage, as they have done in the case of other clauses which they did not agree with.

Moreover, the facts are as follows and I think the hon. member for Amanzimtoti will concede this. I said that I was perfectly prepared to accept an amendment to clause 25. I gave an undertaking to certain members of the Other Place. I do not know whether they are members of the same party as that of hon. members sitting opposite, but I understand that they are still members of the same party. I said that if they could come up with a proposal according to which we could amend clause 25 so as to make it more acceptable to them, I was prepared to see if I could do so. The fact remains, however, that the hon. members have not placed an amendment on the Order Paper in that particular regard. The fact remains, too, that they have been unable to formulate such an amendment.

They are under pressure.

I shall come to that hon. member presently. He should not relish the misfortune of these hon. members so much. However, at the moment I am dealing with them. What is the hon. member doing about clause 25? I might as well reply to everyone now on this point. Allow me to. The hon. member is stating that the standpoint of his party is that they are against the presumption in principle. Therefore, they are against a legal presumption in principle. I have great respect for people with principles. In fact, I think that to have principles is the most praiseworthy characteristic one can have. It is just that I so often remark their absence when I look in front of me. The best proof and illustration of whether the principles are being endorsed, is a person’s actions. If a party has policy based on principle concerning a practical matter—this is its prerogative and I am prepared to praise it for this—then its actions must correspond with its principles. It disturbs me, however, that people do not practice what they preach. In all fairness, surely the hon. member for Amanzimtoti knows that various proposals have been considered in this hon. House and that various proposals have been considered in the Other Place as well, concerning legislation which contained presumption clauses and which was supported by hon. members. It became so ridiculous that when legislation which gave rise to a presumption was being considered in the Other Place, an hon. Senator adopted the same standpoint as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I pointed out to him that he had supported a presumption in respect of agricultural legislation. Do hon. members know what his reply was? He said: “Yes, but it protected the farmers.” Therefore, it is no longer the principle that matters, but whom one wants to protect.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that there is a rule which prohibits him from discussing matters which took place in the Other Place during the same session.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to events in the same session. I am quoting what was said in a previous session in the Other Place. The hon. Senator Crook accused me of attacking him personally and said the following (Senate Hansard, 9 June 1975, col. 3515)—

†The hon. Senator goes on to object against my attitude. He continues as follows—

In column 3516 he said—

He goes on to say—

Those provisions created a presumption. That is all I was trying to say.

It is not the same type of presumption.

We are not now discussing the type of presumption to which the hon. member for East London City is referring. I am really not dealing with that now. I am dealing with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti who says his party stands by the standpoint that they are opposed to legal presumptions.

But the hon. member is interested in the debate.

His argument was without any qualification. That is the point. All I can tell them now, is that their actions on various occasions have not corresponded to that hon. member’s principle that his party is wholly opposed to presumptions. In this regard, I just want to say that I think their actions are far better than their principles. I have already replied to the other aspect to which the hon. member referred and I think he is satisfied. I want to suggest, however, that we shall be able to discuss it more effectively during the Committee Stage. I hope the hon. member will accept that.

I now turn to the hon. member for Orange Grove. What is his standpoint? His standpoint is also based on principle. He, in turn, says that this legislation is a centralization of authority and would subject the country to a bureaucracy from Pretoria. I want to compliment him in one respect only. That is that his party is at least consistent in its approach— consistently wrong! What are the facts? The facts are, firstly, that this specific legislation was not initiated by Pretoria. If the hon. member wishes to take the elementary trouble to study the historical course of the legislation in any way—I have given him some information about that; he can get it in my Second Reading speech—he would find that this legislation was initiated in the first place by the engineering profession. That is the first point. [Interjections.] But that is true. It was initiated in 1946. Let us take it further. I indicated that the local authorities, whose powers he is now suggesting we are going to take away, also reacted. The hon. member for Germiston furnished the facts in that regard. The hon. member for Germiston said that 77 out of the 83 local authorities—if I remember the figures correctly—to whom the circular was sent concerning the desirability or otherwise of standardized regulations, said that they supported them. But now I am not supposed to look to those people who deal with these things every day. I am to listen to the theoretical speculations and sinister fears of that group of people. I am not prepared to do that. I am prepared to listen to those people who deal with these things in practice every day and to whom, in terms of the legislation of the land, certain duties have been entrusted which they would like to execute. If those hon. members take exception as far as the ability of these people to do this is concerned then I must tell them that I cannot agree with them.

There is another point I want to make to the hon. member, and I shall couple it with a question. What is the actual, effective test of where a particular power should lie in our political set-up, i.e. whether it should lie with the Government, the provincial administrations or the local authorities? That is the first question.

I can give you a whole list of what we believe should remain in the hands of the local authorities. Our ideas on that score are well known.

The second question is : Whose opinion must be decisive in this regard? Let me come back to the first question. I am of the opinion that that party which can perform a specific task most effectively, should be the one to which that specific task is entrusted. If only the hon. member would take the trouble to go into it, he would find that there is a continuous exchange in respect of the parties which have to perform certain functions from time to time. It changes from one authority to another according to the norm of effectiveness. I now come back to my second question, and that is: Who is best able to judge who should be charged with a specific function and who can perform it most effectively? I should say that the people with the most experience of the practice of a specific function would probably be best able to deal with it. Who has the most experience on the subject of this Bill? I do not believe the hon. member for Orange Grove will differ with me when I tell him that it is the local authorities.

Local conditions differ.

Of course they differ. That is why provision is made in the legislation for the differences in respect of geographic areas to be taken into account. That is not my point, however. I want to ask the hon. member once again whether he agrees that the local authorities are best able to judge on the question of the necessity or the desirability, or both, of national building regulations. Does he agree with that?

Just repeat it.

Mr. Speaker, I shall just proceed.

Just repeat the question.

Do you agree with me that the people who are best qualified to judge whether there is a need or desirability for national building regulations and standards are the local authorities?

Not necessarily.

Well, Sir, allow me to say that the weight of the evidence indicates that I should rather accept the standpoint of the local authorities than that of the hon. member. I have serious doubts as to whether he has ever in his life read a local building regulation. In fact, I wonder whether he has ever served on a city council. [Interjections.] Has he ever served on a city council?

You are lacking in understanding.

I am just asking whether you have ever served on a local authority.

No, I have not.

That is enough for me …

Have you ever been a builder?

Sir, what is the evidence of those people who can speak on this subject with authority?

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

I shall give the hon. member a chance to ask his question shortly. Allow me to finish first; then I shall answer any of the hon. member’s questions. What is the evidence? In the first place, the evidence is that the provincial administrations have voiced their agreement with the legislation.

That is because their policy agrees with that of the NP.

That holds true for Natal as well. [Interjections.] Wait! The hon. member is sucking a statement out of his thumb again.

Nonsense!

The hon. member says the administrations agree because they have the same policy as the Government. Does the Provincial Administration of Natal follow the same policy as the Government?

No, not at all.

You see, Sir, the hon. member finds it difficult to accept the truth. Allow me to proceed. What do the professional organizations in the building industry have to say?

They want to have a part in the framing of the regulations because they do not trust you to frame them adequately.

With all due respect, I want to tell the hon. member that his insulting and derogatory remarks are not relevant.

He is politely answering you.

No, he is not being polite. Is it polite for him to say that he does not trust me?

*If so, I must say that the hon. member for Yeoville and I differ over standards of decency.

That is a certainty, judging from your behaviour.

My norms of decency are totally different from those of that hon. member.

That is right. Just look at you!

If I were the hon. member, I would go and take a bath.

Who do you think you are!

Allow me to proceed. What is the evidence that we have from those people who can speak on this subject with authority? It is strange that as soon as he gets into trouble with his people, as soon as he betrays a lack of knowledge, and as soon as his impotence is exposed, the hon. member for Yeoville becomes angry. He must not be angry with me. He must be angry with his party. He must be angry with his benchmate. After all, it was he who brought up this series of nonsensical arguments. It was not us after all.

You do not show any politeness.

Order! The debate must come back to the Bill.

The legislation was drafted after consultation over a wide front, and I want to mention just a few of the parties that were consulted: The Department of Public Works; Mr. Ward, an architect; the Cape Provincial Administration—all the administrations, in fact; the Institute of South West African Architects; the City Councils of East London and Bellville; the National Building Research Institute of the CSIR, the United Municipal Executive—the umbrella authority for more than 600 local authorities. In addition to those there are also the Bantu Administration Boards, the Administration of South West Africa, various universities, the Natal provincial committee of the Institute of South African Architects, building societies, Chambers of Commerce, insurance companies, the Department of Prisons, the Public Service Commission, the Association of Building Societies of South Africa, and the South African …

Did they agree with every clause in this Bill?

I said that we consulted. What is more, I have indicated that this Bill was advertised on 14 July 1976 for public information and for comment. Since the publication, and before, discussions about the provisions of the Bill and the implications thereof have continued, to such an extent that what is being held up as a criticism, namely that amendments were introduced in the Other Place, as mentioned by the hon. member for Walmer, is evidence of the fact that the Bill is the result of the closest consultation amongst all interested and affected parties. Let me go further. The Bill provides that regulations and codes of conduct that will be mandatory in terms of regulations cannot become mandatory unless they have been advertised 30 days before the time. Therefore I would say that the whole purpose of this provision is to give the affected persons and organizations a chance to submit to the Minister and to the department their views and comments on the effect of the proposed regulations. I have therefore accepted the principle of consultation completely. Seifsa, an organization in the building trade, also welcomes this Bill. In fact, they do more than that. They also speak in laudible terms of the fact that this Bill is the result of negotiation and consultations. The professional engineers do the same. So do the architects.

*I just want to make a final remark. Standardization does not mean uniformity in terms of planning and the aesthetic approach to buildings. Freedom of design is not affected. I do not want to take the matter any further at this point.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—96: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Potgieter, J. E.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; 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.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. P. C. Le Roux, N. F. Treurnicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—40: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; 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 amendments dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is general knowledge that with the development of the international oil crisis at the end of 1973 it was necessary for South Africa to introduce urgent fuel conservation measures to cope with the problems which arose from the reduction in the supply of petroleum products to the Republic.

The National Supplies Procurement Act, 1970, was the only appropriate Act which could be employed for these purposes. The basic objective of this Act is to regulate the use of strategic supplies in the national interest, while strong emphasis is placed in the Act on preserving national security.

The series of fuel conservation measures which were promulgated by the Government in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act included inter alia the laying down of maximum speed limits, and the success of these measures has been, and in fact still is, to an important extent dependent on motorists adhering to the maximum speed limits. In this specific regard I want to observe that I have the greatest appreciation for the co-operation we are receiving from motorists. Last year I initially adopted the standpoint that we would not succeed in achieving our objectives with punitive and coercive measures. I pointed out that I thought that the effectiveness with which we would implement our conservation programmes would to a large extent depend on the co-operation of the public. Although there are exceptions, the vast majority of motorists have adjusted to the objectives of the legislation.

In this regard I want to point out that the Republic’s foreign expenditure on imported petroleum products, which rose by almost 520% in a relatively short time as a result of the 1973-’74 oil crisis, could continue to increase owing to the higher prices which the oil companies are having to pay for these products. In fact, the recent increases in the prices of crude oil which the oil-producing countries introduced, caused an additional estimated R100 million per annum rise in our annual expenditure on imported petroleum products. Although present speculation indicates that the 5% increase in the crude oil prices with effect from July 1977 which some oil-producing countries envisaged at the time of the last crude oil price increase might not be introduced, it has to be accepted in any case that the prices of crude oil are not likely to remain at their present level indefinitely and will be increased, which will entail a further increase in our expenditure on this commodity. I just want to give an indication of the amounts involved. Last year our account in respect of petroleum products totalled R1 172 million.

It is clear that South Africa simply does not have the necessary foreign currency to finance this ever-increasing expenditure on imported petroleum products, unless it is prepared to effect drastic cuts in its expenditure on other urgent and frequently essential import requirements and by so doing seriously prejudice its economic welfare.

In my opinion it is more essential than ever before that the Government apply its fuel conservation measures in an effective way and that it should also have the loyal co-operation of the public in adhering strictly to these conservation efforts.

Naturally there may be a difference of opinion on what are the most effective methods of succeeding in the conservation objectives. However, I think that the evidence I wish to submit indicates that we are, with the present measures, making a significant contribution towards conservation.

Consequently I wish to make a serious appeal once again to all owners of motor vehicles to help the Government—and the country—in its attempt to cut down on the country’s foreign expenditure on imported petroleum products as much as possible by making greater use of public transport, if it is available, and using their own vehicles only for essential purposes.

† I immediately also wish to refute emphatically the allegations which are increasingly being made by certain persons and organizations in our country to the effect that the Government’s fuel conservation measures are only causing inconveniences and are calling for sacrifices on the part of the public without achieving any meaningful result in the form of a decrease in the country’s fuel consumption.

According to the preliminary figures in respect of total petrol sales in the country during April 1977, these sales were approximately 1% lower than the average monthly petrol sales during 1973. I hope that by now it is general knowledge that the country’s petrol consumption increased by roughly 7% per annum before the introduction of the fuel conservation measures in October 1973. If no fuel conservation measures had been introduced at that stage and applied ever since, the total petrol consumption would have increased by an estimated 21% during the past three years. If this percentage increase, combined with the reduction of almost 1% in the April 1977 petrol sales, compared with the average monthly sales of 1973, are taken into account, it is clear that our total petrol sales during April 1977 were nearly 22% lower than it would have been had the normal annual increase in petrol sales been maintained during the past three years.

* Although this decrease in the total petrol sales—I readily concede this—has to be attributed partly to the petrol price increases which occurred during the past three years as well as to the economic recession of the past two or three years, the effects of which on the country’s petrol consumption cannot unfortunately be quantified, it is clear that the fuel conservation measures similarly made an important contribution to the actual saving on our petrol consumption.

However, criticism has been levelled at the Government from various quarters to the effect that its aims in this regard are not in all respects reconcilable with the overall objectives of the National Supplies Procurement Act. Moreover, the position has gradually become more complex, particularly as the underlying motive for the application of our fuel conservation measures has shifted from problems relating to the physical availability of supplies of petroleum products to the need to curtail our imports of these products with a view to alleviating the shortfall on the current account of the country’s balance of payments.

†In the meantime the Government has also decided that the fuel conservation measures should be accepted as a permanent feature of the South African way of life. In this connection it has been thought advisable to obtain separate powers which could be used to regulate the use and distribution of petroleum products during times when conditions are normal in the country.

However, apart from this important consideration, the Government also applies a Service Station Rationalization Plan which is aimed at the distribution of petrol on an economical basis in the interest of the consumer. The plan is a voluntary agreement between the Government, the organized service station trade and the oil companies and no legal powers exist in terms of which the provisions of the plan can be enforced.

In view of certain problems experienced with the application of the plan in the past and since it may in future be necessary to give legal effect to certain or all the provisions of the plan, it is regarded as essential to obtain legal powers to regulate the distribution of petrol and other petroleum products, if necessary, in the interest of the consumer.

*Petroleum products are strategic products. Consequently it is in the national interests that these products should be distributed on an economically proportional basis throughout the country. It is also essential to ensure that disruptive trade practices that could defeat this object are not pursued with the distribution of petroleum products. In the case of petrol the history of petrol distribution in the country has repeatedly proved that a stable price is a prerequisite for a healthy service station industry. It is also for this reason that the Government has exempted petrol from the prohibition on price maintenance. It may therefore be desirable to prescribe the prices at which petrol and other petroleum products may be sold. However, it should not be deduced from this that the Government has already taken a decision in this regard. I am merely discussing the possibility that circumstances may require this.

The Bill which is now before this House seeks to give legal effect to the above-mentioned objectives.

As is customary, clause 1 of the Bill contains certain definitions.

Clause 2(a) of the Bill defines the powers of the Minister, the Secretary for Trade or the Controller of Petroleum Products in connection with the making of regulations and in the case of the serving of notices, also the powers of those authorized thereto by the Minister, the Secretary for Trade and the Controller of Petroleum Products to regulate or prohibit the use, purchase, sale, supply, procurement, possession, storage or conveyance of petroleum products. Clause 2(b) contains the powers relating to the regulation or prohibition on the provision of any equipment for the supply of petroleum products, the establishment and creation and transfer of outlets, the change of suppliers of petroleum products to any business or undertaking, the rendering of any services, while clause 2(c) empowers the prescribing of prices for petroleum products.

†The appointment and powers of controllers and inspectors are regulated in terms of the provisions of clause 3 of the Bill. This clause of the Bill enables the controllers and inspectors to assist the Minister with the exercising of his powers and the performance of his functions under the Bill and to investigate any offence committed in terms of the Bill.

Clause 4 of the Bill makes it illegal for a person who has obtained information during the course of the exercising of his functions in terms of the Act to publish such information.

Clause 5 provides that exemption may be granted to a person, or a category or group of persons and clause 6 authorizes the Minister to delegate his powers in terms of the Bill to other persons.

The provisions of clause 7 of the Bill deal with the liability of the employer or principal in the case of an act or omission of an employee, manager or agent which constitutes an offence under the Bill and place the onus on the employer or principal to prove that such act or omission was committed without the latter’s permission or connivance and that he took all reasonable measures to prevent such act or omission in respect of which the employee, manager or agent is also liable.

* Clause 8 of the Bill provides that the Minister may make all the provisions or certain of the provisions of clause 2(1 )(a) applicable to any person in the service of the State while acting in the performance of his duties, and may grant exemptions from such a provision.

During court cases which resulted from the application of the fuel conservation measures it became apparent that the effective application of the measures concerned could only take place by writing presumptional provisions into the National Supplies Procurement Act. This principle was taken over from the aforementioned Act and embodied in this Bill, while other aspects pertaining to the onus were also included in the Bill. These provisions are incorporated in clause 9.

Clause 10 of the Bill authorizes the payment and acceptance of admissions of guilt up to a maximum amount of R500.

Clause 11 of the Bill deals with the way in which the Minister shall, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, dispose of fines and estreated bail.

The penal provisions for contraventions of the provisions of the Act are contained in clause 12 and comprise a maximum fine of R2 000 or two years’ imprisonment or both such fine and imprisonment. In addition to these penalties the driver’s licence, other licences, permits or authorizations may be suspended or cancelled, while any property of a convicted person which was used to commit the offence in question may also be confiscated.

In accordance with clause 13 of the Bill the Act will also be applicable in South West Africa, including the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. In conclusion, in terms of the provisions of clause 14 of the Bill, the different provisions of the Act may be put into operation on different dates.

Mr. Speaker, we shall oppose the Second Reading of this Bill and in due course I will move an amendment to that effect. In opposing the Second Reading we intend to limit the number of speakers in the official Opposition to one. This should not be interpreted as a lack of determination on our part or a lack of seriousness of intent. It is purely in order to advance the business of the House. We will state our main objections during the Committee Stage.

I would like to begin by assuring the hon. the Minister that we well understand the reasons for the introduction of this legislation. We understand also the limitations under the Strategic Supplies Procurement Act in bringing about those purposes which he has in mind. We recognize that there is indeed need for new legislation to control petroleum products. We also recognize that the security of South Africa in these times very largely depends on having a secure economic system and that the economy of South Africa depends also on maintaining a proper balance of payments. For all these reasons we understand extremely well why it should be necessary to introduce measures to control or limit the use of petroleum products. But there are certain methods which we believe could and should be used and there are other methods which we believe should not be used. Because, on balance, we believe that this Bill leans more to the method that should not be used and less to the methods that should be used, we shall oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. For the reasons that I have mentioned, the Minister will understand that we do so more in sorrow than in anger.

We do believe that a new approach is needed in our whole attitude to the employment, the use and consumption, of petroleum products. World trends in oil production and distribution have brought about fundamental shifts in the world energy spectrum. I believe that all countries, especially those countries which are industrialized or industrializing, are beginning to have to phase out petroleum as a major fuel. In fact, petroleum will disappear, perhaps in the course of the rest of this century, which is less than a quarter of a century. It will have to be phased out very largely as a major industrial fuel and as a major internal combustion material for global energy needs. South Africa is a relatively low consumer of petroleum products, because in comparison with the major industrial countries, we are in the very fortunate position that we have based a large part of our energy needs on the availability of our large reserves of coal. By a great deal of good luck and good planning we have also concentrated on the production of electricity as a major supplier of energy, based on the coal fossil fuel. We are therefore a low consumer of oil, but we are by no means immune from the pressures upon us. Indeed, in South Africa the local cost of imported oil has gone up, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, five times in recent years. The cost to the country, in terms of the balance of payments, has been enormous and has imposed a grave burden, second only to the defence burden, on the economy of the country.

Having said all this, we feel that it is our duty emphatically to support the hon. the Minister, and it will in fact be the task of this Opposition as well as of the Government to speak constantly of the need for South Africa to keep its economy in shape and to maintain its security in an uncertain world by, in fact, looking constantly to the need to conserve oil resources and to plan its energy patterns in such a way that we may not become overdependent on a commodity which is becoming extremely costly in terms of foreign currency and, which will have to be phased out in any event as an industrial source of energy. We shall therefore give that support. Yet we believe that all these things require a major change in the consumption pattern in South Africa. When one plans a change in consumption patterns, one must think of the consumer and his attitude. One must appeal to the consumer to cooperate. The consumer must be made to understand the full implications. If he is asked to make sacrifices, he must know very clearly why these sacrifices have to be made and why the inconveniences have to be met, in order that he may the more willingly give his support to a reduction in the consumption of oil which has become so vital a factor in our economic development. We doubt very much whether punitive measures and compulsions are the best way to do these things. They have their place, because if people wilfully waste these valuable products, there is a need to ensure that such wastage is checked. This we readily concede.

I agree with you.

However, if we are going to proceed purely by way of negative measures, by way of punitive measures, by frightening people, I believe we will not get the co-operation which, in the long run, we must have. Is it not possible to consider using inducements rather than punishment to make people co-operate? I have in mind such things as tax abatements. It is still the fashion in South Africa to use very large motor-cars, motor-cars which are larger than the requirements of the people justify.

Like the Ministers.

And the Progs.

Very often the purpose for which the motor-car is used is little more than to provide ordinary, utilitarian transport from one’s home to one’s work or, in the case of one’s wife, from one’s home to the shops. This is the use to which cars are commonly put. This may account for 70% of the use to which private motor-cars are put. That being so, is it necessary for people to be extravagant and ostentatious in the use of their motor-cars? Is it a kind of status symbol that is justified at the present time? Surely, Sir it is possible to use simple, reliable transport—a box on wheels with a good engine that will take one anywhere? That is surely all that is needed by most people for their ordinary, practical purposes. I believe that not only in this country, but also in other countries, serious attention must be given to the excessive use of what are known as the “gas guzzlers”, viz. the large, heavy motor-cars which use excessive quantities of fuel. I believe this is totally unnecessary in our society and that we could do with a bit of ostentatious thrift as our contribution to a more sane society.

Fight smog—buy horses!

One way to induce people to behave in this way is in fact to increase the tax on the “gas guzzlers” and to decrease the tax on those motor-cars which have a low petrol consumption. Put a premium on efficiency and thrift and put a tax on extravagance and ostentation. This is a practical way of ensuring that we do in fact save the petroleum products and save on the import of them.

I believe there could be tax abatements which could be applied in various ways.

You realize, of course, that there is a differential applicable to the sales tax levied on various vehicles?

Yes, indeed. I believe there could be further tax abatements in respect of solar energy, for example. The hon. the Minister may well say that solar energy does not drive motor-cars; that is perfectly true. However, the whole energy spectrum is interdependent. If, for example, tax abatements were given to home-owners who use solar energy appliances and thereby save substantially on their use of electricity, this would lead to a reduced burden on the production of electricity in South Africa. The demand for increased electricity is also growing at an alarming rate and costs alarming amounts of capital. If one could reduce the demand for electricity by such methods as solar energy, which is now becoming commercially available, that reduced demand on electricity would also enable us to make further savings in the overall use of energy and less extravagant demands on our coal resources. These things all hang together and should be seen as one continuous spectrum and not in isolation. Attention should be given to the promotion of alternatives, that is to say that other than merely using petrol-driven vehicles, attention should be given to the possibilities of producing and introducing less expensive, more simple, non-petrol consuming vehicles into our ordinary transport scene. This is not something to be done overnight, but it is something which will come very close to us in the next 20 years or so. The Government itself, with a view to achieving the purposes of this Bill, should give more thought to these things.

A great deal more could be done by public relations. One has seen a certain amount of ministerial speech-making, one has seen the occasional article, but there has been no consistent pattern of public persuasion over this very important issue. If the public’s mind could be directed to the important purposes of the saving of petroleum products, a great deal could be achieved. People would become thrift conscious in respect of petroleum products, because I believe the average householder in South Africa—not just the motorist, but the householder and the industrialist as well—are not yet sufficiently so. These things all need to receive attention, but they do not, unfortunately, receive attention in this Bill.

In all these circumstances, therefore, I believe that this Bill achieves a very limited objective. It is unimaginative, it is inadequate, it is incomplete in certain respects—as we shall show in Committee—and it is in many ways a highly authoritarian measure. I have spoken of the need to gain public support and to harness public support to the economic imperatives of our energy system, to our economic needs and to our strategic security. These things cannot be done, however, if one approaches people on a purely authoritarian basis. There is a built-in resistance to this kind of thing in the minds of the public. Does the Bill do these things? Does it do the things which we have asked for? I shall now say what it does do. Very briefly I should like to look at the clauses of the Bill.

In clause 2(1)(a) provision is made to regulate the use, purchase, sale, storage, transportation, etc., of petrol. This applies, I imagine, mainly, although not wholly, to petrol, i.e. to gasoline spirit, although it may well apply to other things such as liquid fuels, etc. The question arises: Is a saving of petrol by the use of speed regulations, by the use of weekend restrictions, etc., really producing a corresponding saving in the importation of crude oil? It is very questionable because as everyone knows, crude oil is imported in its raw state. It goes to the refineries to be fractioned. In the course of this process it produces other products, some of which are essential to our economy. Some of these products are inelastic, partly irreducible. Therefore, if for example the petrol fraction of a barrel of oil after distillation is plus-minus 30%—it could be 20%, as it is variable, but let us assume that one-third is extracted in the form of petrol—then one is still taking out of the other two-thirds of the crude oil a whole lot of other products. If these products are essential commodities, if these products have to be extracted from the same number of barrels of oil, and are consequently largely irreducible in certain respects, then by saving petrol alone, one is not reducing the number of barrels of oil that have to be imported. This is a matter which is causing some concern to the people who are involved in the oil industry. There is also the other side of the coin. While one may be able to limit a motorist by saying that he may not buy petrol over weekends, there are people who use, for example, liquid gas, for purposes other than motoring. They use liquid gas for essential purposes, as other people use electricity. They use liquid gas for cooking, for heating and for essential domestic purposes. These domestic purposes cannot simply be stopped over weekends.

I believe these are some of the aspects which, no doubt, have received the hon. the Minister’s attention, but I believe to talk as lightly as he has done, according to the public and certain commentators, as though a saving in the use of petrol would in fact enable a corresponding saving to be made in the amount of oil which is imported, is in fact erroneous. There is not a direct correlation between the two. Therefore I believe that when we look to petrol saving measures, to the disruption of the purchasing patterns of the public, to the limitation on the times when petrol is available, to the speed restriction measures with which, by and large, I agree, and using these as punitive measures or as controlling measures for the sake of controlling the consumption of petrol, I believe, raises the question as to whether such measures are really as effective as they are presumed to be. I believe that the reduction in the use of petrol—and there is a marked reduction in the use of petrol at the moment—is far more due to the increase in price than to the restrictive measures I have already referred to.

Would you like me to increase it even further?

Well, I know it will be regrettable if it were to be increased further.

Must I increase it further?

No, I do not think so. It is quite high enough now. It is nevertheless a fact—this is my point—that the reduction in the use of petrol by means of restrictive measures has in fact reached the limit of its effectiveness. I believe that merely to increase the hours during which petrol stations must be closed, to further lower the speed limits, and that kind of measure, will not produce a very great improvement in the saving of petrol, for the reasons I have mentioned, whereas, I believe, the price mechanism is already having an effect, an effect which is perhaps more severe, which is perhaps creating more hardship, but which is in fact achieving the hon. the Minister’s purpose without these additional restrictions imposed. This is my point. I do not plead for a higher price for petrol.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. the Minister already has that method working. He does not need these extra controls. He already has a very effective measure working. It is working despite the hon. the Minister, and it is working very well. [Interjections.]

I believe that the provisions in clause 2(1 )(b), that the Minister should take over distribution control by a mass of inspectors regulating the activities of the distributing trade, by prohibition enforced by search and seizure, are really going pretty far. I believe that in South Africa we happen to be favoured by having the advantage of a pretty efficient petrol distributing service.

The powers contained in clause 2(1 )(b) already exist in terms of the existing Act. Does the hon. member realize that?

No, I do not. I believe the hon. the Minister has the right to apply certain powers in terms of the existing Act where he can show, if challenged, that this is being done for the security of the State. However, the link between the security of the State and the economic advantage of the State is not always a clear one. I believe that the hon. the Minister, in basing these new powers on economic considerations, is in fact perhaps not achieving a good economic purpose. Where one has a private enterprise industry— and the distributive petrol trade in South Africa is a very efficient industry; it is competitive, it makes petrol available sufficiently at all petrol stations with hardly any interruption of service throughout the country, even in the humblest villages—I believe that to interfere with such a service which is competitive, is in fact an unnecessary intrusion by the State in an efficient private enterprise. I believe it will do no good; it will enforce the employment of a lot more people than we can afford in these times. We are going to have to have an army of controllers—I do not mean a large army— there is going to be a Controller of Petroleum Products who is going to have his regional controllers. They are all going to have their inspectors. They are going to have the rights of inspection and seizure. They are going to be able to impose very heavy fines. The whole system smacks of an authoritarian approach to this matter, which I think is going to create very little support and sympathy on the part of the public. I believe these provisions are entirely unnecessary because the oil industry is in fact providing a very efficient distributive organization and I do not believe that there is waste of petrol because of the distributive system. If the hon. the Minister can bring evidence that there is waste on that account I shall be very interested to see it.

Lastly, I want to come to price control. I do not want to speak at length about this. We have stated on various occasions that we believe that price control is inherently an interference with the free enterprise system. There are special cases of monopoly and other conditions where price control may be necessary. However, we believe that if price control is necessary, it is better to do so by way of a maximum price than by way of a State administered price all the way down. If there is flexibility below that maximum price one does nevertheless maintain a degree of competitivity and a degree of efficiency through the desire to be competitive.

I agree with you.

Thank you. I want to go on very briefly through the rest of the Bill. I have referred to the Controller of Petroleum Products who is provided for in clause 3 and I shall not elaborate on that.

Clause 4 provides for secrecy of information regarding the operation of the Act. There is a blanket secrecy imposed by clause 4 which I believe is quite unnecessary in respect of a matter such as this. The only exemption is in respect of things done by officials on duty and demands by a court that information be disclosed. Is it really necessary to impose a blanket secrecy on the operation of this legislation to the extent stated in clause 4?

Clause 5 provides for extensive exemptions purely at the Minister’s discretion. We shall deal with that in the Committee Stage. Clause 6 deals with the delegation of powers to any person at the Minister’s discretion. This is also a very open ended authority given to the Minister and, likewise, we shall deal with that in the Committee Stage.

In clause 7 a very heavy liability is placed on an employee, manager or agent of a firm which sells or distributes petroleum to rebut certain presumptions. These presumptions are extremely heavy ones to rebut. Having read through the clause several times, it is difficult to envisage a situation in which an innocent man found, perhaps in error, contravening a regulation on a technical basis, would be able to summon the evidence by means of which he could rebut these very heavy presumptions. This again is a matter which requires some argument. I do not intend to produce the arguments now, but we will indeed produce them in the Committee Stage.

Lastly, I want to come to the penalties. It is quite clear that if one wishes seriously to impose laws and enforce regulations, then there must be penalties. However, what sort of penalties have we here? Even allowing for inflation and its effects, I believe that these are extremely severe. Penalties for offences under certain sections of the Criminal Procedure Act have been increased from a maximum of R100 to R500. It is perfectly true, as the hon. the Minister has said, that the costs of petroleum products …

Are you talking about the admissions of guilt?

Yes, I am talking about clause 10.

That is to make it convenient for a man who is being charged, otherwise he will have to appear in court.

It does mean that he very conveniently can be given a summary sentence and have to fork out R500. The authorities are far less inclined to impose these very heavy penalties at present because of the additional procedure and the cost of time and money involved. However, while the cost of petroleum products has indeed increased by 500%, is it necessary that the fines payable on these summary charges should also be increased by 500%? If the increase in the oil price is excessive, is not an increase of 500% of the fine excessive? The amounts of the fines in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act have moved up from R100 to R500.

No, the maximum admission of guilt that can be paid …

Yes, indeed.

It is not the fine itself …

The amount motorists could be called upon to pay on an admission of guilt, was R100. Now it is R500.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, indeed. Now the motorist can pay R500. In terms of the Magistrates Court Act the amount has been increased from R250 to R500, an increase of 100%. In terms of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1977 it has been increased from R250 to R500. This is more in line with the inflation trends of today. However, in clause 12 provision is made for further penalties for infringements of this Bill when it becomes law. These penalties need to be read to be believed. The hon. the Minister does not need telling, but perhaps the House will be interested to know, that the maximum penalties for infringements of this provision will be R2 000 or a prison sentence of two years, or both.

I have said that.

Yes, and I wish to emphasize it. As if that is not enough, the magistrate will also have the right to suspend or cancel a motorist’s licence or a trading licence and to confiscate the property used for the offence. In fact, for a technical or a deliberate breach of this legislation a man can be ruined. If the hon. the Minister says that this is not possible on a correct interpretation of clause 12, I should be very grateful to hear his explanation.

We can say a great deal more and would like to say a great deal more about this Bill. However, I think I have spoken long enough and have said enough to indicate how strong our objections are, why we object so strongly and why we find it necessary to oppose a Bill whose basic object we support and will continue to support. However, if a method used to achieve an object is such that it will be damaging to that very object, and will discourage the kind of co-operation and willing assistance which is required from the public in order to achieve these objectives, we cannot support it. Therefore it is with great regret that I move as an amendment—

1. (a) unnecessarily seeks to intervene in the competitive operations of private enterprise by also regulating the commercial distribution of petroleum products and the provision of related services to the public;
2. (b) enforces such intervention by introducing an extensive system of new controls, offences and penalties;
3. (c) provides that the Minister and others may prescribe the price at which petroleum products may be sold, whereas by prescribing a maximum price greater efficiency and economy may be achieved by free competition.”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis spoke at great length and in great detail. I really do not think that the hon. member and his party actually have any reason not to support this Bill. The hon. member also said repeatedly that they were in favour of there being control. After that, however, he gave us a very long discourse. He spoke about small cars and big cars, and created the impression that that was why he was opposed to this Bill. The methods for saving, which the hon. member proposed, cannot be implemented immediately. The apparatus which the hon. member had in mind still has to undergo intensive tests. On the other hand we need this legislation urgently, as the hon. the Minister has said in his Second Reading speech. This is a strategic product.

We do not want to use the legislation to give the oil companies a slap in the face at all, as the hon. member is making out Indeed, we are the first to admit that the oil companies have rendered our country good service and that they still do so today. Therefore there is no question of us having that attitude in this connection. I think there are many good reasons for the question of price fixing. I am not going to enlarge on that this afternoon, however; a colleague of mine will do so.

What is clear to me, however, from the UP’s approach, is that they have run out of fuel. In fact, the red light has been warning them for a long time now that they are running out of fuel. There is only a little petrol left in their tank and they are moving jerkily down the hill. Any moment now, with only the slightest possible friction, that car will have stopped without fuel, and I think the driver and passengers should make a jump for it.

I think it is safe to assume that the saving of fuel should be a permanent measure in our country. Apart from our defence expenditure, expenditure on fuel abroad is probably our greatest item of expenditure. That is why it is essential that proper substance be given to the orderly marketing and consumption of fuel. The fuel saving measures included maximum speed limits, amongst other things, and the success achieved in fuel saving remains very dependent on the maintenance of these speed limits. One of the most important reasons why we must save our fuel and petroleum products is the necessity for the importation of these products to be limited, especially with a view to relieving our country’s balance of payments problems. I believe that the vast majority of motorists did indeed co-operate and that they are still co-operating as far as the speed limits are concerned, a fact for which there is great appreciation. There is also an understanding of the problem.

This is a piece of enabling legislation—I want the hon. member for Von Brandis, in particular, to listen to this—which aims at three steps in particular. Firstly, there is the saving of petroleum products; secondly, the saving in the distribution costs of petroleum products; and thirdly, authorization for fixing the price for the products. I am now going to refer briefly to the distribution of and the saving of these products. The distribution of fuel is regulated by the rationalization plan which, amongst other things, also includes a restriction on the increased erection of filling stations with a view to limiting increases in distribution costs. I agree that the rationalization plan is an excellent plan and one that is working excellently at the moment.

As far as fuel sales are concerned, an average of 37 500 litres of fuel per filling station per month were sold in 1960. At the moment approximately 84 000 litres per filling station per month are sold. This represents an increase of 124,5%. In 1960 there were 4 295 filling stations and in 1976 there were 4 648. Therefore there was an increase of only 8,2% in the number of filling stations. It is alleged that the average petrol sales per filling station in our country are the highest in the world. It is interesting to note that 78% of the sales of fuel in our country are of the 93 octain grade and that 60% of all fuel sales are on the local market.

The standard, appearance, quality and service of filling stations have been improved considerably by the plan. The oil companies also make very important contributions, not only in this specific sphere, but also in other spheres, for example sport. Nor would the companies provide fuel unless well-equipped workshops and qualified mechanics were available. They require minimum sizes for workshops and access to the fuel pumps. The standards have therefore definitely been improved by the rationalization plan, and this in turn is in the interests of the consumer.

The rationalization plan is a voluntary agreement between the oil companies, the Government and the filling station industry. There are no statutory powers to implement this plan and it is desirable, in the interests of the consumer, that if this should become necessary, there should in fact be statutory powers to regulate the distribution of fuel throughout the country. Hence the specific provision in the Bill.

The principle of conservation is already embodied in the National Supplies Procurement Act. In this legislation, however, it is regulated in more detail and clear guidelines are laid down for the hon. the Minister in connection with the regulations that must be made. Owing to this legislation it will not be necessary to amend the National Supplies Procurement Act every so often either. The Bill is particularly necessary in order to provide for exigencies that may arise.

Conservation measures are very seldom popular and the strictness or otherwise of these measures, is very closely bound up with consumption and the degree in which conservation objectives are achieved from time to time. Fuel has become a very expensive commodity in our country. A great deal of money leaves the country, and in our country we need every cent for building up the economy, for the development of the infrastructure, for the development of the homelands, etc. We in South Africa must generate our own capital. Whatever steps may be taken in order to save, success depends firstly upon the discipline of the consumer and the individual. Everyone is subjected to a very individual test, because the issue involves the individual and his car and the realization that he must make a contribution towards building up the economy of the country. The hon. the Minister referred, on a previous occasion, to the question of economic patriotism. I feel it will also be particularly opposite in this case. There cannot be inspectors all over the place, and success will depend on the action taken by the individual.

I believe that the necessity has arisen once again for an awareness of fuel saving. The importance of saving for improving and building up our country must be reemphasized. Actually I believe that we should launch another campaign to appeal to people to use the existing public transport that is often subsidized. They must also be encouraged to make use of lift clubs, and in this regard one can have a look at the latest legislation in connection with road transport. Let us drive only when it is essential. One often finds someone driving a considerable distance just to buy a loaf of bread or a newspaper. There are thousands of vehicles on the campuses of our universities and colleges. I do not begrudge this to anyone, but our young people could perhaps launch a special savings campaign amongst themselves. They can fire the country with an awareness of fuel saving.

I do not doubt that this measure will always be dealt with and implemented in the national interest. I trust that it will never be necessary to introduce really drastic measures in terms of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, towards the conclusion of his speech the hon. member for Klerksdorp very briefly touched on an aspect of this legislation which is very important. I think it is the crux of the debate and it certainly forms a very important part of what the hon. member for Von Brandis was attempting to convey to the Government. We all understand and realize the absolutely essential nature of the conservation of our resources, particularly petroleum products.

There is no question about it that everybody in this House fully understands the vital necessity for the conservation of these products. We equally understand and accept that measures must be taken by the Government in order to achieve this conservation. Where we differ from the Government is in their approach to these measures and the actual measures that they take. In a matter that is as vital and as important as this, there are a number of things which the Government must understand, one of which is that the mere production of laws, the mere placing on the Statute Book of a law of this nature with its wide provisions and the mere creation of a bureaucracy to carry out these provisions cannot succeed in the final analysis in achieving the aims for which the legislation is created.

The use of energy is something which affects the entire South African community. It affects every single person in the community. Unless, in the final analysis, the Government achieves the wholehearted support of the South African community as a whole and their positive co-operation, it cannot succeed in a measure such as this. There are two steps which are lacking. Firstly the Government has taken no steps whatsoever and has not gone to the trouble of making the South African population fully aware of all the aspects of the need for the conservation of energy.

You are talking nonsense.

No, it is so. Let us talk about the possibility of the use of media that are under the control of the Government, namely the radio and television.

These powerful media of mass communication could be used by the Government very effectively and successfully to convey to the entire South African population the vital necessity for the conservation of fuel and to make them understand what we in this House know, and that is that fuel supplies will be exhausted probably within the next 30 to 40 years. They must be made to understand that there is no immediate substitute for petroleum products, to make them understand the value of petroleum products and to make them understand that the exhaustion of petroleum products is going to place the economies of the world in tremendous difficulties. They have to make them understand that they will have to co-operate and participate in the conserving of these resources. But Government has not yet taken the initial very important step of informing the public of South Africa and motivating them as far as the conservation of fuel is concerned. Neither has it designed a broad strategy, systems and procedures, by which the industry and the community as a whole can participate in the saving of fuel. As far as public passenger transport is concerned, no steps have been taken to provide throughout South Africa an effective and reliable public passenger transport system and in association therewith methods to motivate the public to change from the motorcar to public passenger transport. Neither has the Government itself set any sort of example to the public of South Africa in the saving of fuel. Not a single Cabinet Minister has set an example to the public of South Africa by dispensing with the huge gas guzzlers, I think the Minister called them, the huge motorcars that they operate and which probably do only about 10 miles per gallon. The Government should set an example to the public and say: We as Cabinet Ministers want to set an example to the public and am prepared to use smaller motorcars to show the public that we are actually serious about what we are saying, that we really want to prove to the public that we are serious and that we too are prepared to make a sacrifice in this field. But as yet the Government has not set any example with regard to the saving of fuel and energy and they cannot expect the public of South Africa to co-operate in this field unless they are prepared to set an example.

What kind of car do you own?

I drive a Reanult 4L. It gives me 45 miles per gallon. I acquired that car because I was aware of the problem and because I wanted to make a contribution. Before I began using this car, I drove a very big car. I was fully aware of the problem and therefore I made my contribution. However, that hon. Minister has not done anything in this connection. I want to challenge him today to set an example to the public of South Africa himself. Tell the public that we have this problem, that we must all make a contribution and that he, the Minister of Economic Affairs, is going to set an example to South Africa and to the people outside by getting rid of his big car and by acquiring a small economic car. If the Government were to do this, it would make a very good impression on the public and it would contribute to the success of this legislation. The Government must be prepared to investigate alternatives, to conduct research in respect of alternatives for petroleum fuel and in respect of alternative means of transport, and it must also take the initiative in informing the public and motivating people to make use of those alternatives.

†This is in fact an example of a mistake in Government procedure such as often occurs. When they have a large, overall problem, in the first place they tend to wake up too late and, when they do wake up, they take a small, isolated aspect of that problem and produce a small, isolated measure to deal with it. They adopt an ad hoc approach instead of realizing that, since the problem is so wide-ranging, one requires an overall integrated approach. What the Government, with respect, should do is to investigate the problem in detail and formulate a comprehensive integrated energy plan of which the use of petroleum products will form a part. Unless the problem in respect of petroleum products is dealt with as part of the overall energy problem and requirements of South Africa, success will not be achieved because they will be dealing with the problem without having made provision for the use of alternative sources of energy to replace petroleum fuel and without providing effective means of public transport. I believe the Government has failed in this respect in that they have not done their homework. They have not done the background work which is necessary before introducing measures of this nature.

Therefore, while we have full understanding for and support the attitude of the Minister that steps must be taken, we differ with the hon. the Minister in respect of the steps he is taking and in respect of his approach. We believe the hon. the Minister should go back and should first of all examine the entire energy problem in great detail, after which he should draw up a comprehensive integrated energy plan of which the use of petroleum products will form a part. After that, in order to ensure the success of the plan, we believe he should see to it that the public understands in detail what the problem is all about in order to motivate the public to participate with enthusiasm and to co-operate in the carrying out of this plan. For those reasons we are pleased to be able to say that we are in full agreement with the statements made by the hon. member for Von Brandis in his speech and that we shall support the amendment he has moved.

Mr. Speaker, in his opposition to the Bill this afternoon the hon. member for Von Brandis mentioned a so-called “army of controllers” that would have to be appointed if we want to apply the provisions of this Bill. I see the hon. member for Von Brandis is having very urgent discussions with his collegaue; I would be pleased if he would listen to me. Once again it was a question of a member of the Opposition speaking without thinking, because in South Africa today we already have certain fuelsaving measures which are implemented and enforced. Who is doing this? If the hon. member had taken the trouble to think a little, he would know who is doing it. If we take a look at the legislation, we see that a Controller of Petroleum Products is to be appointed. As is the case already, the Secretary for Commerce will probably be that Controller of Petroleum products. Regional controllers can also be appointed, and if a material shortages of crude oil should arise, and rationing should have to be implemented, one can foresee that a few of these regional controllers would have to be appointed. I think that the hon. member is actually opposed to the so-called inspectors which will have to be appointed. We shall, in fact, need those people to implement the law. It is a fact, however, that similar provisions are being applied at the present time. This is being done by traffic officers. Therefore I cannot see where he gets the idea that an “army of controllers” will have to be appointed. We already have the necessary people, and if the measures embodied in this Bill are placed on the Statute Book, the same people can also implement the new measures.

The hon. member also complained about the high fines that are imposed and about the existing right to confiscate certain property. In passing I just want to point out to the hon. member that the proposed clause reads that the court “may” confiscate it, not “must”. In other words, it is left to the discretion of the court to confiscate an article like this, if necessary. He also said, just in passing, that the Minister is now being empowered to do these things. This is not the case. It is the court, whilst the National Supplies Procurement Act, from which this matter is now being taken, directly empowers the Minister to do certain things. Those hon. members have a great deal of confidence in our courts, as we do too. We are not ashamed to say so either. That is why I do not think they should object to our giving the courts the opportunity of exercising a discretion when someone appears in court. I want to point out to the hon. member that the high fines and penalties envisaged in the Bill merely demonstrate to those hon. members and the whole of South Africa the seriousness of this matter. Fuel is a strategic commodity that we cannot play around with. That is why it is essential for us to make the people, who do not use fuel properly, realize that we are serious about this matter.

The hon. member for Bryanston also said that we must make our people more aware of the problems that exist in this regard. He maintains that the Government does not do so. Surely that is not true. We do, in fact, do so. We know that all our media are continually requesting our people to save fuel. When the problem arose in 1973, there was a radio broadcast by the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard. I will not be told that our people in South Africa do not know about this problem. In contrast to this I want to say that this type of opposition we get from those hon. members about a measure like this, creates the impression amongst members of the public that there are no problems in this regard and that there is not a shortage of fuel in South Africa. Now they accuse us of not taking the necessary steps to inform our people. I think they have the wrong end of the stick in that regard.

The hon. member also said that the Government does not create the necessary alternatives by means of which we can save fuel. I see the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is shaking his head. I can hear it over here. The hon. member also said that the Government does not institute the necessary public transport so that the people can have alternative methods of transport. However, which hon. members of that party supported the Urban Transport Bill, which aimed at doing precisely that? They actively opposed it. They did not join us in support of that measure. This is the kind of thing one simply cannot understand.

If the Government therefore introduces a measure, specifically in an attempt to save fuel, the Opposition opposes it. Three weeks later they reproach us for not having introduced that measure. Let us briefly get some perspective on this matter—I do not want to spend much time on it. Fuel, petroleum products in particular, have become indispensable as a source of energy. This is not only the case in South Africa. It is an irrefutable fact throughout the world. Without petroleum products, in their various forms, the wheels of the majority of the vehicles of any country cannot turn. It is a fact that the ordinary motorist and commerce will be the first and hardest hit when there is a scarcity of fuel. This is the case in all countries of the world and, let me emphasize, not only in South Africa. We all agree that if something like this should happen, the economy of any country would be seriously disrupted and very detrimentally affected. One can even put this in stronger terms and say that if the economy of a country is hit in this way, it could be forced to its knees. One can add that peace and order will also be endangered, and all this can pose very serious problems to a stable Government. A shortage will also mean serious disruption of the normal pattern of life of the man in the street, the overall population of a country. We need only think of the disruption caused when we were faced with the fuel problems for the first time in 1973. This is the situation throughout the world. All responsible Governments throughout the world—one only has to read about this—are actively taking steps today to prevent disruption of this type hitting their countries. In the very recent past we heard in the House—we heard it repeatedly—about the really critical situation that the world is headed for in the sphere of energy, and of the real shortage of energy sources facing us. We also heard about the drastic steps that are being considered in the USA at the moment for the proper planning of future energy requirements and the conservation of energy sources. It is clear to all of us that every responsible Government must protect the available energy sources in its country actively and as effectively as possible so that they can be used to the best advantage of all concerned.

The few aspects I have mentioned are facts. They have not simply been plucked out of thin air. Against this background one is amazed that the hon. members of the UP and of the PRP oppose legislation of this nature. They seriously object when hon. members on the Government side accuse them of disloyalty to their fatherland. Today, however, they have another opportunity to show us how loyal they are by supporting this measure. Once again it offers them an opportunity of showing where they stand in relation to the protection and conservation of a strategic commodity without which this country’s wheels cannot carry on turning.

Moreover, we in South Africa are in a unique position as far as this matter is concerned. We are living in very much more dangerous circumstances than most other countries of the world. Those countries, however, apply such measures.

Thanks to the National Party.

Now the hon. member for Durban Central is accusing us of being the cause of our position being so dangerous. I do not know how much longer the hon. member will still walk amongst us here. To look at him, it would seem as if he is on his last legs. He does not need any more fuel. [Interjections.]

We are living with the threats of international boycotts hanging over our head, especially as far as fuel is concerned. There is the danger that our fuel supply may be cut off completely. This is a matter we dare not ignore. All day and every day we hear that threats of this type are being made against us. Apart from this, it is financially not possible for South Africa, as the hon. the Minister put it, to spend such astronomical amounts on fuel. Our country simply needs that money in other spheres. This is a reality that any responsible Government and any responsible hon. member of the House should accept as the obvious. Quite rightly therefore, the question that arises is why the Opposition does not support a measure of this nature. The reasons which they have given thus far—and I say this with respect—are really not adequate to convince the Government that it should withdraw this measure.

We are involved in the discussion of the principle in the Second Reading debate. The Opposition says that they agree with us in principle; they support the principle that an inquiry should be made into fuel and methods of conserving it. In spite of that the hon. Opposition affirms their opposition to the principle. They concede that fuel must be subject to protective measures, but then they come up with all kinds of trifling reasons why they cannot support the Bill. Those, however, are reasons we can sort out and debate properly during the Committee Stage. When it comes to a principle, however, we should stand together. The Opposition should not say that they agree with us in principle, while they still vote against the Bill. In this regard I do not understand the hon. members of the Opposition at all. [Interjections.]

I do not want to spend more time on this, however. I believe that the proposed measures are in keeping with the realities facing us in South Africa. Therefore we are creating the necessary measures to enable the Government to act, if necessary. These measures are absolutely essential for the protection of a commodity which is of vital, strategic importance to us. That is why we gladly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg. This is not because I do not agree with him, of course. However, my time is also limited. I do agree with many of the things he said, as will appear from my speech.

Rather give the UP hell!

I am going to do that now. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, the PRP and the official Opposition are on the same band wagon, for once again the PRP have taken the official Opposition on to the wrong road. The official Opposition will not find the road of South Africa by following the Progrefs. The Progrefs will lead the official Opposition into a cul-de-sac. I am absolutely shattered that the official Opposition should have opposed the Bill.

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that there is only one thing that is worse than his interjections and that is the speeches which he makes in the House. [Interjections.] I am absolutely shattered that the official Opposition can oppose a Bill which deals with the life-blood of South Africa. It is a very sad situation when the Government and the official Opposition cannot find each other in such a vital matter. Petroleum products are part of the security of South Africa and yet the official Opposition deem it necessary to adopt an irresponsible attitude as they have done in this particular Bill. This is a new Bill, but matters pertaining to fuel have been discussed in this House on numerous occasions, for example, during the debate on the National Supplies Procurement Amendment Bill, 1975. The Second Reading of that Bill was endorsed by the official Opposition. The hon. members of the official Opposition, in fact, enthusiastically supported the measure to conserve fuel on that occasion. On this occasion they say that they also endorse the measures to conserve fuel, but yet they are voting against the Bill.

The main principle of the Bill before us today is also for saving petroleum products and economizing on the cost of distribution. The official Opposition has today adopted a stand to oppose the Bill with a reasoned amendment They will now be voting against a measure aimed at the conservation of fuel because the effect of the amendment will be that at the conclusion of the Second Reading they will record their vote against this particular Bill. I am worried about the official Opposition. It is essential in South Africa that an official Opposition thrives. I would like to quote from the Sunday Times dated 22 May 1977 where Mr. Andy Young said—

Perhaps Mr. Young will some day substitute for the word “Rhodesia”, “South Africa”. The subsidiaries of these oil companies operate in South Africa and after this Bill has been passed they will be in a position to say to their parent companies that their operations are now further subject to Government law. They are at the moment subject to Government law, but will then be further subject to it. I think this is most important. For obvious reasons I am not going to go into detail why it is important that the subsidiaries of international oil companies should be able to tell their parent companies overseas that they are subject to the South African law. I think the responsible hon. members of the Opposition will realize that strategically this is a Bill which should be supported. To bear this out I would like to quote part of an article in The Financial Mail, dated 3 June 1977, on a Mr. Rowland who owns an enormous company called Lonrho which is issuing summons against international oil companies. The article reads—

I am not going to comment any further on that statement, save to say that I would be surprised if some hon. members in the official Opposition, after hearing this, do not see fit to change their minds.

*In The Argus of 30 March 1977, it was reported that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs had had talks with the oil companies. According to the report, the Minister said after the talks that he was going ahead with the legislation. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the oil companies have not since that day given any public indication that they do in fact oppose the Bill or have any other comment to make on it. I should like to inquire of the hon. the Minister whether he has any further information which cannot be obtained from the Press or which is not available to hon. members of this House.

†We in these benches adopt the attitude that petroleum products are the lifeblood of the economy of a country and have to be preserved at all costs. South Africa must as far as possible be self-sufficient in the field of petroleum products in the light of foreign attempts to isolate South Africa economically. We also know of the oil crisis of 1973 and the steps we had to take as a result of it. We believe the most important aspect of this Bill is the provision for the saving of petroleum products and the economical distribution thereof. The measures which have previously been introduced to conserve petrol and petroleum products have always been supported by us, even when we were in the official Opposition. We should, however, like a few assurances from the hon. the Minister.

There is a service station rationalization plan which revolves around the method of distributing petrol economically to consumers. Under this plan—as I understand it—there is a gentlemen’s agreement between the oil companies, the service station trade and the Government. By this legislation the hon. the Minister now seeks to make this gentlemen’s agreement the law of the land.

No. All I am taking are the powers which are required so that that can be done.

The Minister is putting into legislation a possibility which now exists by way of a gentlemen’s agreement. We should like the assurance from the hon. the Minister that in regard to the distribution of petrol and other petroleum products, he will as far as humanly possible act in consultation and in consensus with the oil companies and the service station trade. We are under the impression that the oil companies are highly efficient and that they are a competitive private enterprise. It would be a sorry state of affairs if an over-kill attitude was adopted towards them. As far as the price of petrol and petroleum products is concerned, there is only need for the hon. the Minister to prescribe a maximum price. The industry is so competitive that it is a typical example of where our free market private enterprise system will keep the price at a low competitive level. This Bill accords the Minister, the Secretary for Commerce, the Controller of Petroleum Products and the inspectos very wide powers. Those are powers we would not normally support. However, we are not living in normal circumstances and that is why we support those powers today.

In view of the abnormal times we live in, it is obvious that we are going to have to put the vital needs of South Africa first. It is about time some other hon. members learned that. We must put our own personal sentiments aside with regard to this particular matter.

We want to make it clear that our support for this measure in no way creates a precedent for other totally unrelated matters. [Interjections.] Should the hon. the Minister find that he has to use these extreme powers, we should like to know that he has the co-operation of oil companies and the service station trade. The hon. members sitting at the back of me are very noisy. They have had their opportunity; they have had their chance and they have had their chips. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House have made it clear where we stand on this issue. The industry is competitive, sufficient and well organized. We take it that the industry accepts this Bill in a spirit of patriotism. That is more than I can say for certain other people I know. As I have said, we shall not oppose this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. members for Klerksdorp and Verwoerdburg very sincerely for their contributions. I shall return to them later. Let me reply at once to a question put to me by the hon. member for Walmer, viz. what the standpoint of the oil companies in this specific regard was. This legislation is a measure on which an agreement has been reached between the oil companies and the Government. I want to prove this. In my hand I have a letter written to a member in this House by one of these companies.

Is it a member of the Opposition?

I do not wish to say which member it is. The letter reads as follows—

Let me suggest at once that it would perhaps be appropriate if I discussed the individual provisions of the Bill during the Committee Stage and reacted in general now to the standpoints of the hon. members on the pattern of and the role which petroleum products play in the entire energy question. In fact, the hon. member for Von Brandis asked me to do so. However, hon. members must first allow me to reply to the hon. member for Bryanston. It is really becoming increasingly difficult to anticipate, to understand or to comprehend any standpoint of those hon. members. What was the net result of his contribution this afternoon? The sum total of his contribution was that we do not make sufficient use of the radio and television to motivate the general public. What was the sum total of what he did this afternoon? He simply furnished reasons as to why people should not co-operate.

All we say is that government should be by consent and not by force.

There is no such thing. Democracy is not government by consent, because you do not give your consent to what I do. It is government by consultation. The hon. member better learn his constitutional law. [Interjections.]

Order!

I did not interrupt the hon. member for Bryanston.

The Progs cannot sit still.

No, and they do not give anyone a chance to make a speech either. The hon. member went further and in the second part of his speech levelled petty criticism at the Government over the kind of motor vehicles in which Ministers drive. I do not want to reply to him in that regard, but put a question to him: Has he ever taken up the matter of mayoral cars with municipalities?

I have.

When?

Frequently.

Why did the hon. member not do so today? It did not suit the hon. member to do so. For that hon. member and for members of his group it is more important to make petty political gains than it is for them to strengthen South Africa’s economy so that it can also improve its political options and increase its military preparedness. I think we should all take cognizance of the fact that the contributions of that group of members are never tested against what is important to the country.

That is another of your insulting remarks.

The hon. member for Bryanston states that the Government does not have any plan in respect of public transport. But what did the hon. member for Orange Grove do when the hon. the Minister of Transport introduced legislation with this specific purpose, viz. to regulate urban transport, with the emphasis on public traffic services and facilities so that people need not use private motor-cars? I should like to indicate what the hon. member for Orange Grove did in this specific connection. The hon. member moved an amendment to the effect that the legislation should be rejected because, firstly, it centralized power and control and secondly, because it accepted the principle of a greater selective financial burden on the urban dwellers and the motorists. The hon. member for Bryanston alleged that the Government did not have a plan in regard to urban transport, and did not have a plan to establish better public transportation facilities either.

He forgot about the other legislation.

Yes, he forgot about the other legislation, or he was not here when the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke, for they represent 12 parties through their 12 members.

A hen with bad eggs. [Interjections.]

The amendment which the hon. member for Von Brandis …

Order! What did the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark say?

I said: “A hen with bad eggs.” [Interjections.]

Was the hon. member referring to hon. members of this House?

When the hon. the Minister referred to the twelve members of the PRP, I said : A hen with bad eggs. [Interjections.] If exception is being taken to it, I shall withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. member for Von Brandis subscribes to the principle of fuel conservation, but differs with me in regard to the methods and draws inferences which in my opinion are not substantiated by the legislation before this House. However, I shall discuss this further at a later stage. The hon. member’s amendment contains three reasons stating why they oppose the legislation. Firstly, that the legislation is an unnecessary interference in the competitive activities of private enterprises. The second is that such interference is enforced by an extensive system of new control measures. His objection is that the Minister and others may prescribe a price at which petroleum products may be sold. Is that correct? In the first place there is in fact a rationalization plan and in the second place the powers which are being requested in the Bill already exist in the provisions of the National Supplies Procurement Act. In the third place the petroleum industry is asking for the legislation. On that basis can the hon. member allege today that we are interfering in the competitive position of the companies? Surely there is no evidence before us to that effect On the contrary. All the evidence proves the opposite of what the hon. member alleged in his amendment. The second argument deals with the control measures, the creation of offences. But surely these already exist in the provisions of the other legislation. Surely the mechanism, the machinery which is necessary to enforce the legislation now before this House, is similar to that necessary to comply with the existing encumbering measures, in terms of the provisions of the National Supplies Procurement Act With great patience I tried to explain how we have applied these measures to date, the measures in terms of the National Supplies Procurement Act, how that Act is geared primarily to the concept of national security and how the motivations have now been shifted to another facet of our preparedness, i.e. our economic preparedness, with which our taxpayers are involved. That is why we have been advised that it would be best to introduce a Bill relating only to petroleum products. Therefore there is no evidence which supports the second leg of the hon. member’s amendment. But then he comes here and says that I am now receiving the authority to prescribe a price. But I already have the power. The only difference—and the hon. member will concede this—is that in terms of this legislation it is possible to prescribe a fixed price instead of a maximum price. But he will also recall that when I introduced the legislation, I said that it created just such a possibility. He will also recall that I told him that I agreed that it would be preferable that there should be a maximum price.

I therefore allege that no evidence was submitted to this House in support of the allegations in the amendment, and which could convince the House that this was the course that we ought to adopt. I repeat that I would preferably deal with the other aspects during the Committee Stage. Perhaps I should just say that the only positive suggestion which the hon. member made in respect of this legislation was that we should rather employ a fiscal measure to change the structure of the motor vehicle manufacturing industry and the use of motor vehicles. The hon. member will know that, as long ago as 1975, when I was appointed Minister of Economic Affairs, I said in my first public speech, when I addressed the motor chamber of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, that the motor vehicle manufacturing industry should adapt itself to the structural change which had taken place and that the industry should gear its manufacturing processes and designs to the functional and economic use of fuel and not to luxury and the high petrol consumption that went with it. In other words, I am not arguing with the hon. member. The hon. member is also aware that although for other reasons a differentiated rate of sales duty has already been introduced in respect of more expensive and cheaper motor vehicles. It is related to the principle to which he referred.

I think it is perhaps important that I conclude the debate by saying that I agree with the hon. member for Von Brandis when he states that we cannot view petroleum and petroleum products in isolation from the overall energy question. The hon. member for Wonderboom pleaded in another debate for an energy division, apart from the co-ordination in regard to planning and research which is being done by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. I think it is very important that the Government should give serious attention to what the hon. member is requesting, viz. a specific division for energy. I think the hon. member for Von Brandis will agree with that. He is nodding his head to indicate that he agrees.

I have been advocating it for years now.

Let me state in this regard that South Africa is only to a certain extent, i.e. approximately 25%, dependent for its energy requirements on fuel from oil, as against 70% in the case of other countries. What is even more significant and important is that the dependence of South Africa on petroleum products for industrial energy is even less. At the same time the fact remains that although we are actually 75% independent as far as our energy sources are concerned, it is primarily our transportation system which is the largest consumer of petroleum products. This can be attributed, I think, to the extensive exploitable coal resources which South Africa has at its disposal at present. In this regard I immediately wish to make a correction to a report apparently screened on television to the effect that there is no evidence that the exploitable coal resources of South Africa have a life of only 13 years. There are no grounds whatsoever for such a statement. On the contrary. The information which we have, is that the exploitable coal resources amount to 24 891 million tons. At the same time the possibility exists that with more effective stoping methods, it will be possible to increase this volume. It is also possible that new resources may be discovered.

But I do not think that, as far as this matter is concerned, we can sit back complacently. I do not think we can do so in respect of the stoping methods for mining coal. That is why my colleague, the Minister of Mines, has issued a specific directive within his department, precisely as a result of the recommendations of the energy policy committee, that the mechanism should be created to do whatever is necessary to ensure that stoping methods are improved. Of course South Africa is dependent on its coal resources as a source of energy to satisfy its needs in this regard. That is why I indicated in respect of the petroleum industry that 75% of our energy requirements can be satisfied from indigenous coal resources.

In order, purposefully, to make the Republic less dependent on imported crude oil for the remainder of its energy requirements, certain steps have already been taken by the Government as part of its energy planning. The first is the production of oil from coal. As hon. members know, Sasol began 22 years ago, as long ago as 1955, to manufacture gas from oil and coal. The Government also approved the establishment of a second Sasol at an estimated cost of R2 458 million at a very difficult time. What does this mean? It means that, when these two factories are in production, they will be able to produce and supply 33% of South Africa’s petrol consumption in 1976. Once again this proves that the Government realizes its responsibility in this sphere. Secondly, the Government commenced a stock-piling programme, the first phase of which has already been completed. This is being done at prices which are eight times lower than the prevailing oil price on the world market. This is an invaluable asset for South Africa, apart from its strategic advantages. Thirdly, we have, during the past 12 years since 1965, spent an amount of R137 million, of which R77 million was contributed by the State, on an oil prospecting programme. In addition, research in regard to fuel and related matters has been expanded by the Fuel Research Institute and the CSIR, with the aid of the universities. This has been done since the energy crisis began four years ago. An amount of R568 000 has so far been granted to the National Fuel Research Institute, and a further amount of R236 100 for this purpose appears on this year’s estimates.

The research at the institute is directed at the following aspects: Firstly, generated gas and gas generators for vehicles to replace the existing petrol carburettors; secondly, the use of gases other than liquid petroleum gas, for example methane; thirdly, the use of hybrid fuel systems; fourthly, the use of coke as a source of energy; fifthly, the conversion of coke into petroleum and petroleum chemicals; sixthly, fuel conservation measures and fuel mixtures, which we are also working on already; and electrical motor vehicles, to which the hon. member referred, as an alternative means of conveyance. In my opinion this is something which may be investigated to very good effect The CSIR has so far spent an amount of R136 000 on research in regard to battery-powered vehicles. In this year’s estimates an amount of R61 900 has been included which will be given by the Department of Industries to the CSIR since the CSIR is doing research in that specific field as well. A study that was undertaken revealed to what extent the present categories of petrol-driven vehicles could be replaced by battery-powered vehicles. These are interesting data; private motor vehicles as a second car for a family, 34%; commercial vehicles, 10%; motor buses, 50%; motor cycles, 50%. If these calculations can be realized it would lead to a large saving of fuel.

Finally I want to refer to uranium and atomic energy. South Africa has large uranium reserves and very effective organizations for research in the field of uranium enrichment and nuclear energy. Although the projections based on the availability of coal and coal requirements indicate that South Africa’s consumption will only have to begin to level off by the year 2030—i.e. 53 years from now—the favourable position of South Africa as far as uranium is concerned will benefit it in the long term, since nuclear energy will be able to replace coal. Koeberg is only an example of this.

As far as solar energy is concerned, I agree with the hon. member. It is the opinion of scientists, and it is my opinion as well, that the employment potential of solar energy has great possibilities, particularly in South Africa and I undertake to encourage research in this regard as much as I can.

I have furnished the House with this information because I wanted in that way to refute the impression which could possibly have arisen, namely that we are acting in a fragmentary way in respect of the general energy position, and to prove that this simply does not agree with the facts. We are investigating the overall picture of energy in its various facets, as I have tried to indicate.

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

The hon. member could preferably ask his question during the Committee Stage. I should like to dispose of the Second Reading.

In conclusion then, it is wrong to allege that the emphasis in this specific legislation is concentrated on penalties. In fact I have indicated that the success we have in fact achieved is attributable to the fact that we have succeeded in motivating most of our population to comply with the encumbering measures. But it remains a fact that this cannot be done on its own and as an isolated case and that there will have to be penalties, however much one would prefer not to have them on the Statute Book.

I just want to conclude with the idea that although we may differ on the methods and we may differ on where the emphasis should be placed, it remains a fact in the first place that we have to use this energy resource sparingly. I hope that from now on a message will go forth from this House to the general public that it is our responsibility to do so. In the second place, in respect of our energy position in general, we shall have to pay constant attention to the supply position, as we are doing at present, and as I have tried to explain.

Finally, I want to tell the hon. member for Von Brandis that although it is difficult to vary the extent of the products which are produced from a specific barrel of crude oil, it remains a fact that many of the other products which we manufacture are being exported and in this way earn revenue for South Africa In other words, the saving on fuel results in a direct saving on crude oil for our country.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—101: Albertyn, J. T.; Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hickman, T.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mouton, C. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Potgieter, J. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Tonder, J. A.; 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.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Noes—35: Barlett, G. S.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven ’t Hooft, R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. H.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, it was 15 years ago, in 1962, that the NP Government acknowledged the Indians as a permanent responsibility. The hon. Mr. W. A. Maree was the first incumbent of the post of Minister of Indian Affairs, and he held office from 1961 until 1966. Since then there have been five Ministers of Indian Affairs within 12 years. It almost seems as if the portfolio of Indian Affairs is a staging post for higher office. The Indian community is a law-abiding and peace-loving one. I believe they deserve better continuity and more stability at their top level of administration. The constant change in the portfolio of Indian Affairs seems to have retarded change in the political development of the Indians. Several million Xhosas and Tswanas have progressed to sovereign independence in their own homelands. This has taken a period of 12 to 13 years and in that time all the administrative difficulties concerning homelands, urban areas and rural areas have been overcome. However, the three quarters of a million South African Indians, with no homeland as such, but with a background of thousands of years of civilization, appear as an appendage to a unitary system of government which offers them no meaningful control over their own affairs and a very limited form of political self-expression. It is significant that over 40 years ago the world-renowned Indian writer, educationist, philosopher, seer, statesman and poet, Rabindranath Tagore, in his writings propounded the theory, firstly, that “that Government is best which governs the least” and, secondly, that he believed in decentralization of authority and that the State should deal only with those aspects of social life which cannot be administered by the individual or the group. His conception of politics was that of a decentralized and federative State in which local units would increasingly play a more important role. More than forty years later, on 24 May 1977, the hon. the Minister of National Education and of Sport and Recreation put forward the canton concept which has editorially been acclaimed by Die Beeid, Die Vader land and Die Transvaler. It has been supported by the hon. the Minister of Defence, Mr. P. W. Botha, who is reported in Die Transvaler as having said that he is cherishing with great expectation this system for South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister’s qualified reaction is “that the system is something people could and will talk about”. My question to this hon. Minister is whether he believes that the pedestrian progress towards a fully elected Indian Council, subordinate to a White Parliament, or the federal approach suggested and supported by his hon. Cabinet colleagues, would be preferred and, in fact, attract tangible and enthusiastic support from the Indian community. It is a stark fact that Indian support for the South African Indian Council has been and is—to put it mildly— lukewarm. While Bantu parliaments are springing into being in a short period of time—I have mentioned the administrative and other problems which have been overcome in the process—the Indians find themselves shackled to a council which offers no prospect of a homeland, with continued dependence on an all-White Parliament for finance to manage their own affairs. They have no independence in decision-making in matters of personal concern such as where they may live, in which province they may live, where they may play sport and with whom, the citizenship of their wives, where they may trade or practise their profession and their means of transport. These are all things which are personal to them.

As far as transport is concerned, an Indian can board a S.A. Airways liner and travel anywhere in South Africa, but he cannot travel by bus to the shopping centre in West Street, Durban. We pay tribute to an Indian doctor who is in charge of the Bantu clinic at Umlazi. This hospital caters for up to 300 000 to 400 000 residents in Umlazi. However, name me the Indian doctor who is allowed to take up a suite of rooms in a plush medical centre in the centre of any city in South Africa. These are the things which are decided by a White Parliament and implemented by a bureaucracy in Pretoria. This situation flows from the “separate but equal” policy conceived and administered by this Government.

What does it mean in practice, in day to day living? I want to quote from a booklet published by another department handled by this hon. Minister. It is called “The Helping Hand”. I quote—

What is the position as far as homes are concerned? In 1976, in terms of the Group Areas Act, 5 146 Indian families were moved, as against seven White families. What about the shortage of housing? Here again we have the situation that the shortage of Indian housing at 31 December last year in Durban alone was 17 700 houses. The comparable figure for Whites in Durban was 1 200 houses. The social problems which develop under such conditions are alcoholism, drug addiction, broken marriages and broken homes. These are all phenomena which were not major problems for Indians in the past. How is the Government dealing with this situation? It is a good question. The Department of Indian Affairs, to which I pay tribute for their dedication and the work that they are doing, have been aware of these problems from as early as 1972. Reference has been made in reports to the fact that there was a survey which revealed a worsening situation in regard to the problems which I have referred to. Apart from some nebulous planning, what have we seen from the State? The State has remained flat-footed. Let me quote just one example in this instance and that is that it is anticipated that an institution for Indian drug addicts and alcoholics will be completed only in 1983. This is after all the fine words that were expounded at the conference on drug dependency in 1974 by a highly placed official of the Department of Indian Affairs.

To sum up, we can say that the cause is mainly inadequate housing and social conditions. The effect is increasing addiction and a desire to escape from reality. The remedy is not yet in sight.

What of the political future? Large numbers of Indians do not accept the SAIC in its present form. Their reluctance to register as voters is proof of their attitude. I have reason to believe that if the council were reconstituted on an all-elected body basis without delay, which are the operative words, the Indians would register as voters to use the power of their votes to bring about a political climate where they controlled their own affairs and where they were able to participate in top level decisions in matters affecting their daily lives. Thirteen years have passed since the first fully nominated council was instituted. It is four years and three Cabinet Ministers ago that the Indians were told that the Indian Council would in time be an all-elected body with legislative powers.

It is now match point. The ball is in the hon. the Minister’s court. Will he mull the shot or will he win the match?

Mr. Chairman, it was interesting to get a little life from the UP once again. During the past weeks and months we have been sitting here, there has been no sign of life and it was really very difficult for us to conduct a debate. I want to assure the hon. member for Berea that I am always very pleased to speak to him. He always prepares himself fairly well and it is a pleasure for me to listen to him. He brought a certain amount of life to the debate this afternoon and I thank him very much for that. In the course of the debate, we on this side of the House, including the hon. the Minister, shall reply in full to what he said. I want to tell the hon. member a few things, however. The hon. member complained that there have been too many changes of Ministers during the past 11 or 12 years. The hon. member must go and make a study of how a country is administered, how a Government works and what measures are built in to preserve the necessary continuity.

If one thinks of the hon. Ministers we have had during the past number of years, one comes to the conclusion that every one of them was a good Minister. Every one of them did his work well during the period he was responsible for the Department of Indian Affairs. In addition, there is the Government and a State administration to deal with problems. I agree with the hon. member that most of the Indians in South Africa are people whom one can rely on. They are active people who want to look after themselves. They have a unique culture which is highly refined and for which one has a high appreciation if one goes back into history. The problem we very often have with the Opposition in that regard, is that whenever they contrast the Whites of South Africa with other peoples, they find all the faults of humanity in the White man only.

Because I am interested in the Indian community as such, I am interested in not only South Africa’s Indian community, but in that of Africa and the world as well. The hon. member would do well to study the history of politics in India during the past 10 or 20 years. One sometimes asks oneself : Where would the South African Indians rather be; in South Africa under this cruel Government or in India under a Government which has done a tremendous amount of things which this Government has never even incorporated in its programme of principles? At the moment there is a Commonwealth conference in progress, and which people are agitating there at the moment? The hon. member will be surprised to know that there are even people from India agitating there at the moment.

What places the hon. member in such a difficult position, is the fact that he is a member of a party which is at present dissolving and which at the same time is trying to formulate a new policy. That places the hon. member in a difficult position, no matter how thoroughly he wants to discuss this matter with us or how keen he is to debate with us. I feel terribly sorry for the hon. member because he has to debate from a specific principle which is no principle, from the milieu of a party which is dissolving and which has not yet been able to propose an alternative policy to that of the NP.

I have here in my hand a book which was written by a well-known colleague of mine and of the hon. member, viz. Mrs. Catherine Taylor. The forward of that book, If courage goes—My twenty years in South African politics was written by one Mr. Alan Paton. I hope that all hon. members of the Opposition have read the book. I have read it and I find it interesting that someone who has been in politics for such a long time, should have written such a book. In my opinion, there is a need for politicians in South Africa to write about their experiences.

But you write nothing!

I have a diary, the hon. member will also feature in that. Mrs. Taylor once visited the UNO and she writes inter alia the following in her book about her visit there—

That is a lady she met there—

Mrs. Taylor goes on to say—

Now the most important part follows and I want hon. members of the UP to listen carefully—

That is a very important question.

Where is Idi now?

The question Mrs. Cathy Taylor asked is an important one. I want to tell the hon. member that in South Africa, in the particular community in which we are living, and within the Indian community as well, we also have our Hazorikas. We have those elements in the Indian community as well. Furthermore, I want to say that it is not only the Indian community that we have Hazorikas, but in the White community as well.

Hear, hear!

There are also White women in the White community who voice the same standpoints. I want to tell the hon. member for Berea today and all those hon. members who are going to speak after him, that we must ask ourselves what has happened in Africa. Every nation and every cultural society, including my own, has a specific history on the continent on which history has placed it. I have a specific history on this continent. There have been various Indian communities on this continent and they came to the continent of Africa during a particular period. Like you, Sir, I ask myself: What has happened to those communities, and where in Africa does the Indian community have the knowledge deep in its heart that its identity, language and culture will not be infringed upon by a Government, but that that culture will in fact be protected, that it will be expanded? Never has an Indian slept badly or restlessly in South Africa, and felt that someone from the cruel NP was going to take him away in the night and throw him into gaol because he wanted to be an Indian.

It is very easy to criticize any party and to drag up faults out of the history of any party. I think that we, the NP, would be the last to say that we have been without fault. I want to tell the hon. member for Berea that we must go back to 15 or 16 years ago, to 1961, when this department was established. Let us test the policy of the NP—not against the mistakes which the hon. member has mentioned, because I, too, notice many mistakes—and look at the principles which we established for ourselves at that time, after the projection we had made for the future. If the hon. member were to test us against the yardstick to the extent to which we had given effect to those idealistic projections, and if he were to tell us where we had made our mistakes along that path, then I would say that we had in fact made some mistakes. For example, we had too little money and too many problems which we inherited from imperialist rule, which drew the borders in Africa, including South Africa and spoiled Africa entirely. The problems that are being experienced in Africa today, are precisely the result of those borders which imperialism drew and which the adherents and followers of the imperialists—such as members of the PRP—wish to maintain. That is the problem to be faced in rectifying those matters. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Rissik was sheltering behind the irresponsible attitudes of the emotional extremists, but I believe that even he, in all fairness, will admit that there are important situations that have to be rectified in South Africa. Looking at the attitude and actions of the NP Government over the past year, it is clear that they still regard the Indian community as their subdued stepchildren. The Indians seem to be unwanted and an irritation to the Government.

That is absolute nonsense, who said that?

The Government even begrudges them the living space to occupy in the South African household. They seem to resent their proper education, as well as their traditional trading rights.

It seems to me Mr. Dalling wrote that speech.

With very little rebelliousness, the Indian community goes on living, toiling, striving and hoping for a better world. I have said that the NP Government even seems to begrudge the Indian community living space in the South African household, even though they live at the backdoor of most South African towns near the railway lines, next to the factory sites or where the rivers flood. That is where one finds the Indians living in South Africa.

Now you are speaking an untruth.

If I think back …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Kimberley South allowed to say, “You know that is untrue”?

Order! Did the hon. member say, “That is untrue and you know it is untrue”?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Chairman.

But it is not true.

Mr. Chairman, if I think back on newspaper reports dealing with Indian affairs, I remember reports of Indians being evicted from homes and shops. There are regular appeals for living space, for stands on which to build, for residential extension, for determination of group areas and many other issues of that nature. They are seeking a place in the sun. One has but to go to the East Rand to see places like the Germiston Indian slum and Actonville with its Indian community in respect of which I have battled for many years to find relief for the appalling overcrowding that one still finds there today. There one sees a good township slowly reverting to a slum as a result of overcrowding. I have come almost yearly with requests and recommendations for extensions to Actonville. The Actonville administration officers had requests for 838 houses on their waiting list at the end of February this year. An area adjoining Actonville was set aside by the Benoni town council for the Indian community. The area, which is next to Apex station, has just recently been expropriated by the South African Railways to be used as a goods depot. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what his standpoint is on this. In that area on an 8 ha site about 134 stands were planned by the Benoni Council. In respect of another area, comprising 50 ha, there was also advanced planning for the erection of homes for the Actonville people to relieve the overcrowding there. At Bakerton near Springs a similar situation is found. There are 3 000 Indians living there at the moment on 250 stands.

Has nothing happened about Bakerton in the past year?

Mr. S. M. Pillay, chairman of the Joint Residents’ Association said that if extensions could be approved, 200 houses could be built. The people are prepared to buy stands. They are even willing to build their own houses. This is the case with most of the Indians. The main problem is that of having areas made available to them where they can build their houses and where these stands can be planned.

These shortages occur in the Indian areas, while in the White areas one finds townships developments standing empty. Yesterday we heard various accounts which bear this out. Often the lamp posts are there, the roads have been tarred—all waiting for the houses to be built and for residents to occupy those stands. There are many more examples I can mention. So, for instance, there is Page View, and Vrededorp which should have been proclaimed an Indian area …

Why?

Because that was naturally and traditionally their area. They have been living there since the time of Paul Kruger. All that was required was urban renewal instead of the population shift to Lenasia where the stands have not even been proclaimed yet. I believe the stands there might only be available towards 1980. I believe the hon. the Minister should appoint a commission to investigate and make recommendations with regard to the Indian residential areas and municipalities. This has been done as far as the Coloureds are concerned and I believe that the same could be done as far as the Indians are concerned. There should also be a member of the Indian Executive Council responsible for local government, instead of the present situation where there is joint responsibility in the executive for municipalities. Both these recommendations will bring the position in line with what is already being done for Coloureds. They have an MEC for local government and they are also investigating the possibility of establishing more municipalities for the Coloureds. At the moment the Coloureds have only one independent municipality whereas the Indians already have four.

Even the very livelihood of the Indian stepchildren is continually being hampered by Government interference. There are continual reports of the so-called resettlement of Indian traders. The present departmental report mentions 217 traders resettled in Natal, 139 in the Transvaal, and 162 in the Cape Province, in the Port Elizabeth area alone. Why should it be necessary to resettle people who are already trading and who are actively employed in their own businesses?

Have you been to Port Elizabeth and seen the improvements there?

Most of these shopkeepers have become disqualified by the Government and Government action. Even the rural traders have become affected where 590 had to be resettled at an estimated cost of R23 million, or about R39 000 per trader.

No Indian wrote that speech, I can assure you. [Interjections.]

That is true; I wrote it.

One will also find problems in the educational field in the Transvaal Indian community. They are badly neglected and in that field they are also the stepchildren of the Government. There is no or only insignificant provision made for tertiary education in the Transvaal. There is a desperate need for a college for advanced technical education, such as a branch of the M. L. Sultan College in Natal. This is desperately required to train those people so that they can help themselves. I believe the Teachers Training College for Indians is being moved to Pretoria in spite of objections, and although statistics substantiate that there is a greater need in Johannesburg, the college is being moved to Pretoria. I believe it will reduce the number of student teachers in the Transvaal. High school teachers will have to come from Natal. Experience in the past has indicated that the Natal teachers are reluctant to come to the Transvaal. So there definitely will be shortages.

A great lack of nursery school education is also prevalent, especially with minimal training for teachers at the moment. A large number of Indian parents, particularly the mothers, are working at the moment and they desperately need facilities of this nature. There is also a great lack of sports facilities at schools, with very little provision for afterschool activities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is really a great disappointment to me today to speak just after the hon. member for Benoni, because in the past, I really thought that the hon. member made a thorough study of the subjects he raised in the House, even though one could not always agree with him. The hon. member spoke of the “unwanted stepchildren” when he referred to the Indians in South Africa. As far as the NP and the Government are concerned, he does not know what he is talking about. Does the hon. member not know that it was in actual fact under an NP Government that the Indians were recognized for the first time as a permanent population group in this country? It was in the years when those hon. members were in power that the Indians were the “unwanted stepchildren”. The hon. member also said that the Indians lived in the poorest residential areas in South Africa. I cannot associate myself with such stupidity. The fact is that the Indians have some of the best residential areas in the urban areas of South Africa. He would do well to go and take a look at Ladium, Westville and Lenasia, which are among the best in the world. I believe we can really be proud of the Indian towns which have been established by the NP Government. I think the Whips of the hon. official Opposition would really be doing a good thing if they were to take cognizance of the fact that the hon. member for Benoni is totally unqualified to speak on Indian Affairs. [Interjections.]

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Rissik. With the establishment of even more political parties in the Indian community and with a view to the prospect of the election which is being held out to them, I think this may be the right time to take a brief look at certain political developments in the Indian community.

Now it is true that the first political party or political movement amongst the Indians was established in South Africa as early as 1894, by Mahatma Gandhi as a matter of fact. The Natal Indian Congress originated in that party. This is a group which, down the years, described itself chiefly as a reactionary faction and which has often also identified itself with the Black Power movement in South Africa. Down the years, then, it was to all intents and purposes the mouthpiece used by the Indian community to state its political standpoints.

During the past year there has been a merging of two political parties which came into being in South Africa. Those two parties have now merged into the Reformed Party. The objectives of the Reformed Party are chiefly to gain control in the coming election over the Indian Council in order to oppose, as they have already stated, the development of the policy of separate development. This in itself is an extraordinary step, of course. It is an extraordinary step in the sense that the very machinery that was created to give recognition to separate development, is being used to demolish this selfsame policy. At the same time it is a recognition that the constitutional mechanism that is being created by the Government for the Indian community, is being used as a platform from which the Indians in South Africa wish to realize their political aspirations. Therefore, it must be viewed as an effective political body which can serve as a mouthpiece, and as an effective political instrument for the needs of the Indians.

There are also other groups in South Africa which are naturally wiser and which are trying to co-operate. This is the group which gave recognition to the Indian Council. This is a group which is prepared to give the Government its co-operation and which is willing to hold discussions with NP members of Parliament, something which has in fact been done, and which has been done in a very meaningful manner. In practicing their politics, however, the Indians must remember that there are a few factors from which they cannot escape, factors which they ought to note carefully. The first of these has already been mentioned here.

South Africa is virtually the only country in Africa and in many parts of the world where the Indians are officially recognized as a permanent population group and where their progress in the constitutional sphere is already affording them, as a minority group—and this is the statement I really want to make—the privilege of having a say in the matters which affect them specifically. This is a measure of constitutional development which is already placing the focus on their problems because they have a separate political system, in contrast with other democratic systems where the interests of minority groups are totally overwhelmed by the general community interest.

I believe that this is a unique system, one through which the shortcomings of democracy are made good to a considerable extent. Moreover, in view of events in Africa, they ought to realize that it would be extremely dangerous for them to identify themselves with the so-called Black Power or Pan Americanist movement. The reason for this is that experience has taught us that as soon as these radical factions have got the upperhand, it has always been the Indians who have been the first to be victimized. They have even been banned as was the case in Uganda and other countries. The Reformed Party in South Africa and certain other groups have apparently forgotten about Cato Manor and the race riots of 1949. Such people are playing with fire and I want to appeal to them to accept a realistic political view in South Africa for the sake of their own future.

Another fact one cannot escape from is that Mother India has shut the door on them. As recently as February this year the Indian Government issued a statement in that regard. I want to quote a report in the Sunday Times of 6 February 1977 under the title “Mother India shuts the door”—

Those are the facts. Other Indians have also experienced considerable problems recently when they wanted to visit India. The Indians, and the Reformed Party in particular, should rather consider the community interests they are sharing with the Whites in South Africa instead of entering into unholy alliances with other groups.

I just want to mention a few matters of common interest. The Indian entrepreneur, dealer and agriculturalist cannot escape from the common danger of Russian imperalism. They must realize that and throw their weight behind the Government, which is most capable of combating this danger. They must also realize that the right of existence and the economic power of their own community is dependent on a stable structure in South Africa. Do the people of the Reformed Party not understand, then, that it has been, and still is, the rule in the rest of Africa that a massive economic collapse has taken place after the so-called independence of certain States? There has never been place for the Indians, or the Whites, in these liberated States. The Whites and the Indians are in the same boat and the sooner they realize that, the better. The final point of common interest I want to mention, is that the Indian, just like the Afrikaner, is a keen farmer … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it very fascinating to listen to the hon. member for Newcastle when he attacks the hon. member for Benoni on the whole question of attitudes towards Indians. The hon. member for Newcastle comes from a part of the country, namely northern Natal, where attitudes towards Indian citizens of South Africa are somewhat peculiar, as they are in the Free State. In northern Natal, just like the Free State, Indians are not allowed to travel.

They are allowed to travel. [Interjections.]

Well, I remember debates in this House in which the hon. the Minister announced a year or so ago that there was a relaxation on travelling from area to area for Indians, but northern Natal as well as the Free State were specifically excluded.

For your information, there is a contented Indian community in Newcastle.

I realize that there is an Indian population in Newcastle, but not very far from that is an area where this does not exist and that hon. member showed the hypocrisy of his party when he talked about Indians not being step-children in South Africa. [Interjections.] Nothing can wipe out in the mind of anybody the fact that Indians are discriminated against in, for example, the Free State and northern Natal. We have welcomed the relaxation of the restrictions on Indians that have come from this hon. Minister. However, let us not go overboard, because the relaxation does not go all the way. There is no doubt at all that Indians are still restricted and discriminated against. They are very much God’s step-children.

I wish to address some remarks to the hon. the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Indian Affairs. As Minister of Indian Affairs the prosperity and wellbeing of the Indian community are in his hands. They are his special concern. I want to request the hon. the Minister to use his influence with the Minister of Community Development with regard to the plight of Indian traders in platteland towns in Transvaal and elsewhere. I have been told that talking to oneself is one of the first signs of mental disturbance. However, in this instance, the wellbeing of the Indian trading community is in such jeopardy that I suggest that the hon. the Minister should communicate with himself as a matter of urgency.

I should like him to refer to various questions which have been put to him during the course of this session. On Friday, 18 March of this year, the leader of my party, the hon. member for Sea Point, asked the hon. the Minister what had happened concerning the request of the S.A. Indian Council that the resettlement of Indians for trading purposes in the Transvaal rural areas be discontinued. The hon. the Minister replied that this request of the Indian Council could not be complied with. To me this answer illustrated two things. Firstly, it demonstrated to me the complete powerlessness of the Indian Council to obtain protection for their own people or to do anything meaningful at all, because the ultimate power lies with this Government and with this hon. Minister when it comes to the affairs of the Indian community. Secondly, this answer demonstrated the determination on the part of the Government to continue with the implementation of the policy of the resettlement of Indian people. In reply to another question—I think it was not more than a week ago—put by the hon. member for Bryanston, the hon. the Minister informed us that 591 Indian traders were to be resettled and also that a total of 13 331 disqualified Indian families in the country still had to be resettled.

Residential?

Yes. Let us for the time being just forget what this resettlement means in terms of the human misery which is involved, although this human misery is considerable. Let us put it in straight money terms. The cost involved in moving the 591 Indian traders was given as over R23 million. I find it extraordinary that at a time when South Africa is desperately short of capital, we should be wasting money on this sort of nonsensical and unnecessary ideological action. I can only quote the example of the Oriental Plaza in Johannesburg. It is in a way an imaginative concept to have an Indian market, but the Indian traders were forced away from their trading situation in 14th Street, an area in which they had been since before Kruger’s time. They had been there as long as possibly any area in Johannesburg has been settled. The hon. the Minister will tell us that this was slum clearance. They have been forced away to trade in another area, an undertaking which cost a lot of money. I do not know whether the final account has come through yet, but I think the Oriental Plaza cost somewhere between R15 million and R20 million. I regard it as an unnecessary waste of money to build it. They were quite happy trading where they were.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.