As hon. members know, we have been applying fuel conservation measures in one form or another in the country since the oil crisis of 1973 and we have, as required by changed circumstances and as we gained more experience, adapted the measures to serve the country’s best interests.

A close analysis has been made of all the factors which have an influence on fuel conservation with a view to determining which of these factors make the biggest contribution towards the conservation effort.

This analysis has proved that the application of the speed limits undoubtedly makes the biggest contribution in this connection. Consequently, I immediately wish to convey to the public my thanks and appreciation for their co-operation in the application of the fuel conservation measures and, in particular, the prescribed speed limits.

Furthermore, it has been found that the increases which have occurred in the prices of fuel since the beginning of the oil crisis in 1973 also have an important dampening effect on the consumption of fuel in the country.

However, the investigation has revealed that the prohibition on the sale of petrol over weekends has made a relatively small contribution towards the savings. We have, of course, always been aware of the detrimental effect which the prohibition on the sale of petrol over weekends has on service stations, on productivity in commerce and industry and on the tourist industry, as well as of the inconvenience caused to the public by the non-availability of petrol over weekends. The savings resulting from the prohibition on the sale of petrol over weekends have been weighed up against these disadvantages and the conclusion has been reached that the savings which result from the prohibition on the sale of petrol over weekends do not compensate for these disadvantages.

Recent references in the press to the exports of petrol caused the public to ask the question why the fuel conservation measures are being maintained when a surplus of petrol is available. In this connection I wish to explain that certain quantities of finished products are obtained when a ton of crude oil is refined. The relationship between the various product quantities which are obtained in this manner cannot be changed arbitrarily to adjust these quantities to the demand for each product in the market place. In order to accomplish a balance between the demand for and supply of the various products in the market place, it is inevitable that certain quantities of finished products must be exported or imported from time to time. However, this does not make it less essential to persist with the application of the fuel conservation measures in some form, in particular from a balance of payments point of view.

I have pointed out that the adherence to the speed limits is making the biggest contribution towards our fuel conservation effort. In this connection I wish to announce that the fuel conservation measures will be promulgated in terms of the Petroleum Products Act (Act 120 of 1977) which was passed by Parliament last year. In addition, the presumption clause in the Criminal Procedure Act in connection with the accuracy of readings of speed measuring equipment will shortly be put into operation by the Minister of Justice. These steps will facilitate the more efficient application of the prescribed speed limits.

Inevitably there is always a small minority of the public who do not strictly adhere to the fuel conservation measures. It is unfortunately necessary to make legal provision of this nature for this group.

In view of the considerations to which I have referred it has been decided, in accordance with the Government’s policy to apply the fuel conservation measures in such a manner as to cause the least possible disruption to the country’s economy and inconvenience to the public, to change the selling hours of petrol with a view to reducing the disadvantages connected with the closure of service stations over weekends. The regulations which will be promulgated in terms of the Petroleum Products Act, 1977, will, therefore, prescribe that petrol may be sold from 08h00 until 18h00 from Mondays to Saturdays.

It has also transpired that the existing 5 litres of petrol which members of the public may purchase without a permit at service stations and transport directly to their homes for use in lawn mowers and other petrol driven engines, are in many cases inadequate to meet the minimum requirements of the public. I have, therefore, furthermore decided to increase this quantity to 10 litres but I must emphasize that this petrol is not intended for use in motor vehicles and that the restrictions which presently exist on the use of petrol in loose containers will still remain in force in respect of the 10 litre quantities.

I have furthermore also decided to make the sale of petrol for cash compulsory since there are sound indications that such a step may promote fuel conservation. In this connection I may mention that the service station trade has undertaken to make appropriate arrangements with a view to eliminating any problems which the implementation of this requirement may have for particular consumers of petrol.

It must not be concluded now that, as a result of the amendments which I contemplate making to the fuel conservation measures it has become less essential to conserve fuel. In fact, it remains of utmost importance for us to continue with our fuel conservation efforts. These amendments are effected in an effort to ensure a smoother functioning of the fuel conservation measures.

Viewed as a whole, the changes should not lead to any increase in the consumption of petrol. The more effective application of the speed limits, the promulgation of the fuel conservation measures in terms of the Petroleum Products Act as well as the requirement that petrol may be sold for cash only should offset any increase in consumption which may possibly result from the change of the selling hours.

I trust, therefore, that these amendments to the fuel conservation measures will not only ensure the public’s continued co-operation in our fuel conservation effort but will also encourage those members of the public who are sometimes inclined to disregard our fuel conservation measures, in particular the prescribed speed limits, to respect these measures.

It is contemplated to promulgate the new fuel conservation measures on 3 March 1978, when they will also come into operation.

I may just point out that although the number of motor vehicles on our roads has considerably increased since 1973—when these measures were introduced—the latest indications are that the conservation is such that we are still on the 1973 levels of consumption.

Order! Before I call upon the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to speak, I just want to remind hon. members of the fact that it is customary for any member making a statement with the leave of Mr. Speaker to be heard in silence.

Mr. Speaker, my attention has been drawn to a report in The Argus of Thursday, 2 February 1978, by a member of The Argus parliamentary staff, in which I am reported as having said that “Mr. Vorster had distorted the situation to suit himself during his speech in Parliament”.

I wish to advise the House that I was approached on Monday, 30 January, by a member of The Argus parliamentary staff for a statement. I advised tire staff member that I would not make a statement for publication as I would be dealing with the matter when I replied to the debate on Thursday, 2 February. Certain words which formed part of the ensuing discussion I had with the staff member were published in the above form on Thursday, 2 February.

As the words which I have quoted, had they been used inside this House, would have been unparliamentary, I withdraw them unreservedly and convey my regret to the hon. the Prime Minister that they were published.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Persons whose earnings at present exceed R6 760 per annum do not fall within the ambit of the Unemployment Insurance Act and as soon as a worker earns more than this sum, he is no longer a contributor to the fund and is unable to build up further credits for the purpose of unemployment benefits. This maximum wage limit came into effect on 1 October 1975.

A maximum wage limit was written into the Bill because Only workers whose earnings fall below that limit are regarded as persons in respect of whom provision has to be made for assistance by means of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Due to wage increases, however, it is necessary to revise the maximum wage from time to time.

The Unemployment Insurance Board, on which both employers and employees are represented, recommended unanimously, after representations had been received, that the wage limit be increased to R8 400 per annum, i.e. R700 per month or R161,51 per week. The proposed maximum is an increase of 24,26% on the existing maximum of R6 760 per annum. According to the Department of Statistics the average wage increases for all classes and races from October 1975 to October 1976 amounted to approximately 17% and if it is taken into account that wages have been rising steadily in the meantime, the proposed increase of 24,26% is not unrealistic.

As far as the financial effect of the envisaged amendment is concerned, section 29(1) of the Act provides that temporary workers in the Public Service must contribute to the fund. This applies, too, to the Government departments and provincial administrations that employ them. The State’s contribution as an employer will be minimal since, with a few exceptions, employees on a salary notch between R6 760 and R8 400 are on the permanent staff and are therefore excluded as contributors. It is estimated that the additional expenditure for the financial year 1978-’79 will amount to approximately R6 000.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is desirable that the amendment be brought into effect as soon as possible since it is in the interests of the workers, and I trust therefore that it has the approval of the House.

I have now introduced the first piece of legislation for this session. Hon. members will have noticed that I was brief and to the point and I trust that the House will discuss the legislation in the same spirit so that we can conclude the debate with despatch.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us has obviously been introduced because of the increases due to inflation. The resultant increase in salaries and wages makes it necessary to increase the bottom line so as to include those whose wages have increased. We in these benches support this legislation because it is quite clear that the measure is necessary and timely. The hon. the Minister has already made it quite clear that the effect of this legislation will be that those who have been directly affected by inflation and whose wages have been increased, will be able to make contributions to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and thereby qualify for the benefits if ever they should be unemployed.

The whole question of unemployment is very much before the country and before the hon. the Minister and his department, and therefore it is always important, when one deals with legislation of this kind, to highlight the desirability of employees who face the risk of unemployment having the maximum benefits possible. I believe the legislation before us ensures that this is so. The increase involved seems a reasonable one to us. It not only allows for what has taken place over the last year or so, but also makes certain provisions for what might indeed happen in the future. To us this is sensible.

This highlights one of the growing problems which we face in South Africa, namely that unemployment is no longer affecting merely the unskilled and the semi-skilled workers, but that there are many employees in the higher brackets of income who are being affected by the uncertainty of the economic climate. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that there will come a time when we shall have to take into account not only those who are included in the bracket with the new ceiling of R8 400, should this legislation become law, but also those who are in a higher income bracket and are directly affected. I am referring for example, to the man who is earning R10 000 a year and who, because of redundancy or the present economic climate, discovers at the end of a particular month that he is without work. This is not an isolated occurrence. There are a number of employees who are facing this situation. This has certainly been my experience in business as well as in my own constituency, and I am quite sure that it has been the experience of many hon. members on the other side as well. I simply want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that we shall have to give some consideration to these people as well. I fully appreciate that one has to draw the line somewhere and, therefore, we will support the raising of the relevant amount to R8 400.

I want to refer to one other thing. If it had been permissible, we would have introduced a reasoned amendment, because we believe that consequential and directly related to this matter, is the last part of clause 1 which is not affected by the proposed amendment and reads—

We believe it would have been an improvement if the hon. the Minister had taken the opportunity to delete that, as we believe that, firstly, it is redundant and no longer really applies as there are very few who earn less than that amount. If legislation is redundant it should, of course, be removed. Secondly, we believe it is discriminatory as it stands and, therefore, we draw it to the attention of the hon. the Minister and ask that when he and the department look at this legislation again, they may well consider amending this legislation even further.

Finally, I want to say that we of the official Opposition are as concerned as anyone else about the rising tide of unemployment and are also concerned that those who are unemployed, through no fault of their own, and who are registered under the Unemployment Insurance Act, deserve to have the best possible treatment, and not as a privilege, but as a right, because they have made their contributions. We have taken note of the hon. the Minister’s own comments in this regard and would appeal to employers to ensure that those employees who are able and have the right to register and pay their contributions, no matter who they may be, should receive that without any hesitation or delay. We believe employers should do their utmost to see that the necessary papers and cards are in order, and also that the department should ensure that at all times and in all cases those employees who are entitled to compensation through the Unemployment Insurance Act should have the best possible information and facilities available. It is not very easy to do this as there are many, many hundreds and thousands of people who are directly affected, but we make this appeal as we give our support to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that the hon. member for Pinelands has assured the hon. the Minister that they support the Bill. The hon. member raised two matters. Firstly, he argued that the ceiling which is now being increased from R6 760 to R8 400 per annum, should be increased further. I think that we must bear in mind that there is an Unemployment Insurance Board upon which both employers and employees are represented. They are the watchdogs, as it were, of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. As we have already seen, they approach the hon. the Minister from time to time with recommendations which consequently lead to the Act being amended. This also led to the Act being consolidated in 1966 as a result of the adaptations made over the years. Ever since the consolidation of the Act, the ceiling has already been increased three or four times, as is being done once again now. Therefore we believe that the Unemployment Insurance Board will keep a watchful eye on that ceiling.

In the second place, the hon. member argued that the provision concerning Bantu who earn less than R546 per annum, should be deleted because they will not be able to enjoy the benefits laid down in the Act Due to the high wages which the Black man earns in this country today, there are very few Bantu who earn less than R10,50 per week, and therefore most of them fall in the category of workers who enjoy the benefits contained in this Act. On the other hand, however, the hon. the Minister appointed the Wiehahn Commission last year in order to investigate all labour legislation. I think that that commission will pay attention to this legislation too.

We express our appreciation for the raising of this ceiling, because it affects many employees who will now also benefit from this legislation. One is inclined to pay attention to the ordinary unemployment benefits only when someone loses his job, and one sometimes loses sight of the fact that there are many additional benefits, including maternity benefits, death benefits for dependants and sickness benefits, benefits which many employees would forfeit if this ceiling were not increased. I think it is necessary for me to point out just one other matter today. When this Act was amended last year, there was a chorus of pessimism from the other side of the House. I remember that the former hon. members for South Coast and Maitland and even the hon. member for Pinelands, who has just resumed his seat, expressed a great deal of concern about this fund. However, they exaggerated unemployment in South Africa. They expressed concern that this fund might be exhausted within a year or two and that there would therefore no longer be any insurance for the employee. We all admit that unemployment has increased over the past few months. However, it is interesting to note—I think it is as well for us to mention this for the record—that the balance of the fund amounted to R208 million on 30 December 1976 and that the provisional figure for 30 December 1977 amounts to R209,6 million—an improvement of R1 million. The formula according to which employees make their contributions, was amended by means of the amending Bill last year. In future they will contribute 0,3% of their earnings and in this way the income of this fund has increased. As far as ordinary employees are concerned—there was a contribution of approximately R15 million in 1976 and R19,7 million in 1977, while the contributions from employers, who make their contribution in accordance with a different formula, viz. 0,5% of their income, increased from R11,1 million to R14,7 million. We can also take note of the fact that, as a result of unemployment in South Africa, far more is paid out in benefits. In 1976, R10 million was paid out to 94 500 cases and in 1977, R26 million was paid to 160 000. But taking into consideration these improved and increased benefits which are being paid out, one is nevertheless grateful that the balance of the fund is still so sound. I think that the employees of South Africa should be grateful for this healthy situation.

I want to express our sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for these additional improvements to the Act It is a pleasure for us to support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is customary that new hon. members be granted a cease-fire during their maiden speeches before the beginning of the battle. If one considers the size of the Opposition, it is going to be a very short cease-fire. However, I am grateful, and I am sure that I am speaking on behalf of quite a few of the new hon. members of the House, that we do have this privilege when we deliver our maiden speeches. To us it is a time of nightmares and strained nerves.

† Mr. Speaker, amendments to paragraph (d) of section 2 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1966, have been tabled and approved by this House on six previous occasions during the past 11 years. These amendments, including the amendment tabled today, are necessary adaptive responses, as the hon. member for Pinelands has indicated, to the effects of inflation and other factors. The effects on the dynamics of salary and wage structures which fall within the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1966, have been pointed out by previous hon. members. In the case of White employees, inflation has probably been one of the main contributory factors bringing about a relatively steep rise in salary and wages for this group over the last 11 years. This has also been so in the case of Asians, Coloureds and Black workers, but a further contributing factor in the latter three cases has been increased job opportunities and responsibilities, a shortage of skilled and semi-skilled workers, and I am pleased to say that increases in wages have also come about for the Coloureds, the Asians and the Black people as a result of more enlightened management practice in industry today. It is interesting to note that in 1966 the level of earnings prescribed for the White, Coloured and Asian groups in terms of paragraph (d) section 2 of this Act, was R3 536 per annum as compared with R8 400 as proposed in this Bill. This represents an increase of 137% for the 11-year period, or an average annual increase of 12,4%. Inflation, as the hon. the Minister of Finance reminded us yesterday and as is liberally quoted in various documents, has rarely been below 11% a year in recent years. The effect of raising the upper limit to R8 400 a year, as is proposed in the amending Bill before the House today, will be to ensure, as previous hon. members have said, that contributors remain within the scope of the Act. Where necessary, adjustments must be made to section 2(2)(d) of the principal Act. An increasing number of White, Coloured and Asian employees would be deprived of this security if this maximum limit had not been raised by the various amendments. The annual average adjustment of the maximum level for Whites, Coloureds and Asians, as indicated in the amendment, is 12,4% a year, which is marginally higher than the inflation rate of 11%. However, I believe that this margin is essential.

As other hon. members have pointed out, the minimum prescribed level of earnings for Blacks of R546 a year has remained static for the past 11 years and I agree wholeheartedly with all the previous hon. members who have indicated that this should remain so in order to ensure that a greater percentage of the Blacks are able to benefit from becoming contributors and potential beneficiaries of the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

That this amendment tabled today is realistic and necessary is borne out by recent reports, one of which was quoted by the hon. the Minister of Labour. I refer to a report by the Department of Statistics whose figures, released during the fourth quarter of 1977, show that, for the period January 1976 to June 1977, the earnings of Whites increased by 12,3% on average, whilst Coloured employees’ earnings increased by 13,3% and those of Asians by 17,5%. Over the same 18-month period Blacks increased their earnings by 15,9%. In order to get the figure of R546 a year into perspective, I think it is also interesting to take note of figures released by the S.A. Digest on 20 January 1978 in which it is clearly indicated that per capita earnings of Blacks in the Johannesburg area rose from R900 in 1974 to R1 700 in 1976. It is evident, therefore, that the lower limit level of earnings prescribed in section 2(2)(d) of the Act— namely the R546 a year—is well below the earnings of an extremely large number of Black employees covered by the provisions of the Act in the non-mining and non-agricultural sectors.

That the benefits of participation should be available to as many people as possible is obviously of paramount importance, especially in today’s economic climate, where the non-Whites, who form the bulk of our work force in South Africa, are to be covered, as they are the people who are the first to be hit by the merciless iron fist of unemployment whenever it arises. That a considerable number are unemployed in our country today, due to economic factors, is, I think, beyond doubt. However, it should also be remembered that hundreds of workers have become the victims of mismanagement in South Africa as well. They are the victims of weak managers who could not steer their ships through the rough seas of economic disorder in South Africa during the last few years and whose companies have become shipwrecked basically due to management incompetence. The effects of our limited management potential in the White sector, which is required to provide most of the managerial talent to a population of 25 million instead of five million, must have been a contributory factor. It is generally accepted that the maximum available manpower potential in any population is 16% of that population. However, in South Africa today approximately 30% of Whites are employed in managerial and semi-managerial capacities. The risk of unemployment in South Africa is, for this reason alone, therefore probably higher than it should be, and should our economy not have had the benefit of exceptionable resources of vital minerals, we could well have found ourselves in more dire straits than we are today in the unemployment field. At the same time it is imperative that we remain a free and private enterprise based economic society in South Africa, devoid of creeping socialism. In my opinion the Unemployment Insurance Act of 1966 provides an essential service, a service which provides a form of risk insurance rather than a plethora of social security benefits which have become the millstones around the necks of those economic systems which have opted for and participated in nationalization in a socialistic type of system.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members and yourself for the excellent privilege of a ceasefire during this maiden speech and wish to conclude by saying that we on these benches wholeheartedly support the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the hon. the Prime Minister for the words of welcome which he addressed to me on Monday. I am not quite sure whether he will always find me so welcome in the future.

† Mr. Speaker, it is a nervous and tense moment when for the first time one addresses this House. One cannot help recalling the greater figures of the past who have addressed this House, or who have addressed meetings in this House in the past I refer to such great figures in South African history as Jan Christiaan Smuts and Louis Botha or, to go back even further to the old days of the Cape Colony, people such as Cecil John Rhodes, who have left a lasting mark on South African history. My own family has also played its part in parliamentary affairs, and members may find it of interest to note that I am the fourth generation of my family to participate in Parliaments in South Africa. Going back to the Cape Colony days, an ancestor of mine was the member of Parliament for Albany. My grandfather was the Senator for Native Affairs in the Smuts Government, and my uncle represented the very constituency that I represent here today.

I had hoped, in my maiden speech, to deliver a plea to this House for the constituency in which I live. I found, however, that there was too much material to be able to put over in a short speech, and secondly, I found that the more I researched, the more difficult I found it not to be controversial, so I decided to leave this to a later day.

I should like to turn now to the amendments in question. The hon. member for Durban North has already spoken on this matter, and I must congratulate him on his maiden speech. I am sure it was evident to everybody that he researched his subject extremely well. I am sure that he will be a very able spokesman from these benches on matters that fall under the labour portfolio, and I am sure that he will make a great contribution in the future.

As the hon. member has said, we are in favour of this amendment, but it does have a twofold effect. Firstly, it will increase the number of people who compulsorily contribute towards the fund which will have the effect, in the second place, of increasing the amount of moneys paid into the fund on an annual basis by both employers and employees. In the report of the fund for the year ended December 1976 one sees that the assets of the fund exceed R212 million. This is an enormous figure, a figure which is growing year by year despite the fact that, economically 1976 was not a very good year and the unemployment graph in effect rose sharply. Nevertheless, the income of the fund for that year exceeded the expenditure by almost R16 million. There is consequently extensive growth in this fund and, obviously, as a result of the amendment which is being considered today, it is going to grow even further.

Secondly, there has recently been an alteration whereby contributions are made on a percentage basis rather than in groups. I believe that this will also have the effect of increasing the contributions. I do not think that we wish to see this fund grow to an amount which is unnecessarily high. I am sure there are many actuaries who could give one very many variations of what the necessary amount of insurance for the unemployed should be, but one must note that the current figure is six and a half times the annual expenditure. In other words, if we had no further income in this fund at all, the expenditure during 1976 would still be covered six and a half times. Then, if one simply adds the income from interest and the rental on the Laboria Building in Pretoria, with 1976 forming a basis for calculations, the fund would be sufficient to last for a period in excess of 10 years. I think the hon. the Minister must take note of this fact and perhaps consider reducing the contributions that are made by the employers and the employees. Between them they currently contribute 0,8% of their salaries. I believe that this should be brought down to a figure more in the order of 0,5%: 0,3% by the employee and 0,2% by the employer. Looking at the effect of this on the 1976 accounts of the fund, we see that the income of the fund would consequently be reduced by R9,8 million. This reduction would nevertheless leave the fund with an increase of income over expenditure of almost R6 million, so the fund would not have decreased as a result of such a move. It would also have a subsidiary effect which, I am sure, would make the hon. the Minister of Finance very happy, and that is that both employees’ and employers’ taxable income would be increased, thus resulting in more funds being paid into the national Exchequer. This, of course, would go quite a long way towards paying the State’s contribution to the fund which, in the year concerned, was R6,2 million.

There is a second point which I believe should be drawn to the attention of the House, and this relates to another provision of the fund which states that no unemployed person may obtain more than 26 weeks’ payment by the fund without an intervening additional 13 weeks of employment. At the time this was introduced, it was very necessary because I understand that there was a tendency to use the Unemployment Insurance Fund as a pension fund. People would work and then draw funds from the Unemployment Insurance Fund without really being genuine work-seekers.

In view, however, of the economic situation today, I believe that the 26-week provision is likely to cause more hardship than it is likely to prevent abuse. Let us face it: The economic situation in 1977 is, in fact, not good. I should like to give a few figures in illustration of this from only two sections of industry. The first is the building industry. Plans submitted for approval by the building industry for the year ending February 1976 amounted to R1 082 million. In July 1977 the annual running total had reduced to R682 million. In other words, there was a drop of R400 million in plans approved. This represents a 37% drop from the figure for February 1976. When it comes to the motor industry, one finds that the vehicle sales in 1975 were 363 000 vehicles. In 1976 this had dropped by 66 000 vehicles to only 296 000 vehicles. This was a drop of 18% in one year. The figure has dropped even further in 1977.

It is, therefore, apparent that industry is not able to cope with the number of people who require work. This is borne out by the unemployment figures as given in the journal of the Stellenbosch Bureau of Economic Research. That journal states that in August 1974 the registered unemployed, Whites, Asians and Coloureds, amounted to only 7 899 people, whereas by May 1977 the figure had risen to 26 000. The point I am trying to make is simply this: People will find it difficult to get employment within a period of 26 weeks. This has not been the case for many years, but I believe it is now the case that, despite a great desire and a willingness to do a job of work, people are not able to obtain employment and, consequently, they should be entitled to draw their unemployment insurance for a period longer than 26 weeks. I sincerely trust the hon. the Minister will give this point consideration and will consider doing something about it, even if it is only something of a temporary nature, while the unemployment situation is as serious as it currently is.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank you for your indulgence.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my thanks for their support to the hon. members who have taken part in this short debate. One naturally expects to receive support for this measure, because it represents an improvement in favour of employees. It serves as a further safeguard for the position. In particular, I want to congratulate two of the hon. members who took part. In all the years I have been in this House it has never happened that maiden speeches have been made so early in the session, actually at the first opportunity after the major debate we have just had.

You must watch this party, Fanie.

When one takes note of where these two speeches originated, it seems to me that the tables are being turned in this House.

We are the effective opposition.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I want to convey my special congratulations to these two hon. members. The hon. member who has just sat down congratulated the hon. member for Durban North on his speech, and on behalf of this side of the House I want to associate myself with his view. I think that all the hon. members must have been impressed, as I was, by his sober discussion of the Bill and the insight which he showed in this connection. I am very glad that the hon. member indicated that he would be taking part in labour debates in the future. I want to encourage him to do so. I want to welcome him to the labour ranks and assure him that if he presents this kind of sober and balanced views in his future contributions, he will always be given a good hearing, by this side of the House as well. I appreciate that. I see that the hon. member who has just sat down is also knowledgeable in this connection and that he too is able to speak with insight. In fact, he comes from a family from which one would expect such proficiency. To him, too, I want to express my best wishes for the future, and I want to assure him that if he goes on making this kind of speech in the future, we shall look forward to it, for then we shall be able to have fruitful discussions. I want to express my sincere congratulations to both hon. members on their maiden speeches.

† In this regard I would like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member raised the possibility of the deletion of the last part of the paragraph which he referred to. May I say to the hon. member that this point is being considered by a sub-committee of the board. An hon. member on this side of the House referred to the Wiehahn Commission which has a general assignment in this regard, but this sub-committee has been given the task to look into this matter, and it will accordingly be considered by them. I therefore believe that we are ad idem that this point will have to be considered in future and I can accordingly reassure the hon. member in this regard.

As for the matters raised by the other two hon. members, may I refer to the figures that were given by the hon. member who has just sat down. If unemployment should rise to a level of 5%, we would require a fund of R350 million. Under the circumstances prevailing in South Africa, Mr. Speaker, hon. members will realize that it is a bit of a risk to have a low margin. The matter has therefore been considered by the board and it will in future always be considered continually by it. The Minister, in this instance, will always take heed of the recommendations of the board and be led by the board. However, I know that the sentiments expressed about this matter are genuine. We must be very careful not to put our sights too low because if unemployment in South Africa should increase, we may be in dire straits. Therefore I think both the hon. member and I should take heed of the advice of the board. I will always be very willing to listen to the board to see what directive they can give. In any event, I do consider the point that has been made to be a genuine one.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is generally known, the main purpose of the Expropriation Act, 1975, which came into operation on 1 January 1977, was the creation of a uniform expropriation procedure. This includes uniformity relating to the determination of the amount of compensation. The practical implementation of the new Act revealed that the wording of some regulations left doubts as to their interpretation. The purpose of this amendment Bill is to eliminate those doubts.

The principle of compensation at market value has been maintained in the new Act. Furthermore section 12(2) makes provision for the addition of 10% to such an amount of compensation where land is expropriated, but to a maximum of R10 000. This concession has been made after an investigating committee, as well as the Select Committee of the House of Assembly dealing with the legislation concerned, found justification for it. The only purpose of the proposed amendment of the provision in question is to remove all doubt that the addition in question is limited to a maximum of R10 000 per specific expropriation—and not per property—where the land which is being expropriated, consists of more than one piece of surveyed or unsurveyed land.

† The Expropriation Act, 1975, also provides for the establishment of compensation courts. In the absence of agreement regarding the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of an expropriation, any one of the parties concerned can apply to a compensation court to determine the disputed compensation provided that the amount claimed is less than R100 000. Regulations regarding, inter alia, the practice and procedure of such courts and the tariff of court and other fees in connection with proceedings before a compensation court, may be made under section 25 of the Act. Such regulations were in fact promulgated on 22 April 1977.

Section 25 of the said Act can be interpreted to imply that advocates’ fees should also be prescribed by regulation. The General Council of the Bar of South Africa objected against such a tariff as the fees of advocates, in the absence of any agreement, are traditionally left to the discretion of the taxing master. Taxing masters of the Supreme Court are trained to tax such fees without the assistance of a tariff. The same taxing masters will act as taxing masters for compensation courts. The General Council of the Bar is of the opinion that the Act should not be strictly interpreted and that a tariff should not be prescribed for advocates. This view is supported by the Government and no tariff for advocates has been prescribed in the regulations to which I have referred.

*As the possibility has not been excluded that a court may find that the taxing master of a compensation court will not be able to allow advocates’ fees on a party and party basis unless a tariff for advocates is prescribed under the Act, this Bill seeks to remove all doubt concerning the matter.

Sir, here the advocates are once again having their own way and I believe that the legislation will not evoke too much discussion.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill contains technical amendments to certain provisions of the existing Act and we in the official Opposition support it Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the basis on which compensation for an expropriation is to be determined and merely closes a loophole in the existing Act in that a limitation of R10 000 is placed on the additional amount that shall be added to the amount of compensation in any one transaction, even though the land involved is in more than one piece. Further, I am a little worried and I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister as to why he is changing the basis on which this additional compensation is granted, in that the percentage which will be payable, would now be payable based on the value of the land only rather than on the value of immovable property. Immovable property, by definition, includes presumably not only buildings and other permanent structures, but also a real right in that immovable property, e.g. a servitude. This obviously is a further limitation of quite considerable significance, and I should like to know why the hon. the Minister has found it necessary to introduce this amendment to the Act.

Clauses 2 and 3 deal with advocates’ fees and provide that these will be on the same scale as that applicable to proceedings before a provincial division of the Supreme Court. We have no quarrel with this.

We shall support the Bill, but depending on what the hon. the Minister replies to my question, we might take the matter further during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make it clear at the beginning of the session that, in legislation such as this, where we agree with the measure, we are not going to follow the procedure that has been followed in the past that every party has to stand up and make its situation clear in the House. I wish to give notice of that so that if in future a member of this party does not speak, it means that we shall vote however we happen to feel.

What I wish to say in relation to the particular amendment in clause 1 of the Bill, is that it seems to me as if the department has, for once, got ahead of the lawyers. It is quite obvious that should it have happened that an expropriation could have taken place of a large number of pieces of ground, I am quite sure that one of the lawyers would have found out that he could have insisted that the department pay him R10 000 in each subdivision. I would therefore like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on beating the lawyers for once …

Are you sure they have been beaten?

Well, if no case has come out yet, it must be. [Interjections.] We as farmers have to stick together and I feel this is something we can be pleased about. In the next clause, however, it is quite apparent that the lawyers have beaten the farmers. In the Act the hon. the Minister attempted to create a ceiling for what could be charged by advocates in cases undertaken on behalf of their clients. The Bar Council, however, has come to the Cabinet and the hon. the Minister is now taking a step back in making provision that this will not happen. So we feel the score is about 10 all, and because nobody has won and nobody has lost, we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Mooi River for the attitude he has adopted. One thing that I could never understand is why hon. members, when they stand up to say that they agree with a measure and to thank the Minister for it, still make a hell of a long speech and in the meanwhile waste our time.

The hon. member for Orange Grove talked about compensation. The hon. member must remember that in the case of immovable property, a building on a piece of land, the whole structure is valuated and there is a ceiling of only R10 000. One cannot get more. If a property is valued at R200 000, one is not going to get R20 000 for it. The owner can only get R10 000 and nothing more. A valuation is made of the whole property, not only of the land. If it concerns, for instance, a small farm without buildings like a farm house, etc., and the whole valuation is R80 000, we then take 10% of the global valuation, which means that the man will receive R8 000.

That is not what the amendment says.

In practise it works this way. At the moment we have no problems with the Expropriation Act, because the land market is down and we find that everyone is very happy with the prices we offer. We very seldom really expropriate and we very seldom go to Court. We settle such cases on a friendly basis and I do not think the hon. member need be concerned about immovable property or improvements to buildings. Mr. Speaker, I think the whole thing is above board.

Mr. Chairman, following up a point I made in the Second Reading, I am not quite sure that the hon. the Minister understands the point I was trying to make. The existing Act at the moment applies to immovable property, which might be a servitude, a building, a dam or anything at all. In the amendment which the hon. Minister is moving to the Act, he talks about land only. The world “immovable property” is being removed. Obviously, the value— particularly on a small property—of immovable items such as buildings, or even the value of a servitude, could be quite considerable. This measure, in fact, limits the compensation that somebody might get to the value of the land itself without the improvements. What I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, if he will agree, is whether, before the Bill proceeds to the Other Place, he would consult with his legal advisers and reconsider it On that basis we would be quite prepared to let the measure go through, but we do think that this is a significant change and we should like the hon. the Minister to have another look at it.

Mr. Chairman, now I understand the problem of the hon. member for Orange Grove. If a man owns a farm with one homestead, but with four, five or six sub-divisions, then in terms of the original Act he was entitled to solatium of R10 000 in respect of each of the four, five or six portions of land. That is mainly what this amendment Bill is concerned with.

I am with you there.

The hon. member understands that. However, even if a farm has four or five homesteads on it and consists of four or five different economic units, one valuates it as four or five economic units and each one is entitled to the full solatium. If the hon. member still feels unhappy about the whole situation—and I do not think he has much trust in my legal experience—I want to give him the assurance that I will go back to my legal advisers. The hon. member for Waterkloof, who is chairman of the relevant committee, gave me this information and he is a very fine chap. I thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for the idea. We shall go into the matter and rectify it if necessary, but I cannot see that this matter will lead to any problems in practice. The whole thing concerns adjoining portions of land as opposed to separate farms adjoining each other.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the points which the hon. the Minister has raised. I certainly understand the purpose of the amendment. I quite agree with him that it is quite right that one should only pay solatium on one piece of land when there might be six or seven. It should not apply to every piece. However, I am still not sure whether the hon. the Minister has got my point.

He will see that in terms of the amendment, the words “immovable property” are removed and the word “land” substituted. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that there is a difference between “immovable property” and “land” as such. It is that difference which is exercising my mind. However, on the basis that the hon. the Minister will submit this again to his legal advisers—although I must say I am not altogether happy with the idea of the hon. member for Waterkloof, with whom we have quarrelled on many occasions in the past—I shall accept it. But I hope the hon. the Minister will see the error of his ways and rectify it.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Fencing Act, 1963, has proved over the years to serve the purpose for which it was introduced. However, time necessitates periodic amendments even to an exemplary Act like this one. It has now become necessary to make small additions to certain definitions. The Bill now before the House makes the necessary provision for this.

At present the Act is only applicable to State-owned land if it has been registered in a deeds office. However, the State owns quite a lot of unsurveyed, unregistered land to which the Act should also be applicable. Amendments to the definitions of “owner” and “holding” are therefore introduced in order to include unsurveyed, unregistered State land.

† State land which is bought in terms of a deed of sale is only transferred after the buyer has occupied it for a few years. The Act does not include such a buyer in the definition of “owner”. A lessee of State land who exercised his option to purchase is, however, included. There is no justification to discriminate between a lessee and a buyer of State land. The definition of “owner” is therefore supplemented so as to eliminate this inconsistency.

*The proposals in this Bill have the support of the South African Agricultural Union.

Mr. Speaker, we of the official Opposition have no quarrel with this amending Bill. On the face of it the exclusion of the land held by the State from the definition of “holding” would free the State from the obligations imposed on holders. When I first read the Bill it appeared that this is what the hon. the Deputy Minister was trying to do, i.e. to exclude the State, but on reading further one sees that section 32 of the original Act provides that—

In other words, my first interpretation of this amendment was wrong and on further examination it became clear that what the hon. the Deputy Minister was trying to do was just to tidy up the legal phraseology. We have no quarrel with this at all. So we shall support the Second Reading, the other amendments being merely consequential on the change in designation of the Ministers of Agriculture and of Coloured Relations. We cannot quarrel with that.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the difficulty the hon. member for Orange Grove has encountered. To me it was exactly the same; I must admit that. But, like the hon. the Minister, I can only say that that is something we have to settle with the law advisers. I think this is good legislation and I do think that these changes are necessary, the consequential changes as well as the specific point that was spelled out in the Second Reading debate. If we make these changes, this legislation will undoubtedly meet the requirements. There are pieces of land which are not registered and which belong to the State. There are quite a number of them on the Makatani Plain as well as along the coast From time to time such cases come to our attention. According to the Act in its present form, those pieces of land are exempt from the obligations of the State, for example, to pay for the boundary fencing, etc. And it is only right that this should be corrected.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, in terms of this Bill additional land is being made available to the people of Bophuthatswana. We support this in principle. Of course, the whole question of consolidation touches on a particularly delicate problem of our existence and I am sure that in future we shall have to pay much more attention to this. However, we have no objection to this particular Bill.

Mr. Speaker, from discussions that we have had we understand that this is really just a tidying-up Bill of matters that were left hanging in the air when the last consolidation measures was introduced in the House. However, there were proposals relating to other pieces of ground which could have been made available to Bophuthatswana in compensation, pieces of land within these particular areas. In fact, the Government of Bophuthatswana has exercised an option, saying they prefer these to be incorporated while other pieces are now falling away. It appears thus that some 80 000-odd hectare are involved and it seems to me absolutely logical that this should happen. Therefore we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mooi River is quite correct. The position is as he has indicated. I thank him as well as the hon. member for Rondebosch for expressing their parties’ support for this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I move—