Mr. Speaker, allow me to avail myself at once of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke sincerely on his election as chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and also as chairman of the discussion group on finance. I have no doubt that he will continue the excellent work done by Senator George Botha. All the members of the discussion group and I are looking forward very much indeed to co-operating closely with him.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville, in the debate, taxed me for not having talked about sanctions. I must say I was very surprised that he took that line. What did he really expect me to say about sanctions. At the moment there are certain threats emanating from one or two quarters. I suppose one can say there is some big talk involved as well. In those circumstances I believe one should get on with the job, build up the country to the best advantage of all our peoples and, whilst preparing for an evil day as far as we can, certainly not allow ourselves to be deflected or to be led into all sorts of idle speculation about something of the order of sanctions. I cannot foretell the future. I cannot foresee if there will ever be sanctions. Therefore it seems to me that the last thing I should do is to indulge in that type of, as I say, idle speculation. In that connection I would merely like to say that where this sort of threat seems to come from time to time, particularly from certain quarters in the Carter Administration, I believe we must be very careful not to imagine that that represents the thinking of all Americans, so much so that I believe that the majority of the American people would most certainly be extremely concerned, and are extremely concerned, to think that such a thing could happen.

I happened to be invited to address a very large international conference in the USA in November last year. It was attended by representatives from virtually all the states of the USA, from surrounding countries and also by distinguished people from Europe. I thought I might just read one or two short paragraphs to illustrate how I put my position. I said—

Then I went on to say that I hadn’t come there to speak to the American Government, but that I had come to address an important conference. I discussed our economy and our social affairs and made some reference to the general state of security in Southern Africa as I saw it. At the end I came back to this point of the relations between us and I said that it seemed to me we certainly needed the United States as a great democratic nation. However, I was also presumptious enough—in a humble way—to say that I thought the United States needed us. And I gave my reasons for saying that. I ended by saying—

If you will forgive just one more personal allusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to the response which this elicited. I was not sure what sort of reception I would get, because I spoke fairly straight on these issues. I can say to you, Sir, that there was a standing ovation from the whole conference. I happen to have the tape recording, and it goes on for about two minutes. I say that, because if ever there was a representative group of important Americans from all fields of activity in the social, economic and political spectrum, then it was at that conference. There were also quite a number of non-Americans among them. That is the way in which they approached this matter. That is why I say to my hon. friend: Let us not become involved at the moment in these theoretical possibilities. I cannot even say whether they are possibilities; they may be. Let us be prepared, and in the meantime let us keep cool heads. Let us get on with the job of building up this great country to the great heights to which we will build it.

*Sir, no speaker in the debate denied that the favourable turnabout in our current account was a great achievement. Various hon. members also perceived that it was to a large extent the result of the Government’s policy of financial discipline. But now that the policy has worked and we see that the policy is working, some hon. members now seem to be blaming the same policy for our low growth rate. When I referred in my speech to the successful application of this conservative financial policy of ours, which in my opinion is almost universally supported throughout the country, the hon. member for Yeoville for example said by way of interjection: “That is why we are experiencing a recession.” I think the hon. member should now decide where he stands. Does he or does he not support this conservative policy which brought about this great improvement in the balance of payments and in other areas? One cannot expect it to come from all quarters.

You know, Sir, I found it very interesting to see what action was being taken from those benches. I thought that if there was an amendment from the Official Opposition, the hon. member for Yeoville would move it. That did not happen, however. That amendment was of course moved by the hon. member for Parktown. That hon. member is not here today. He explained to me why he could not be here, and I appreciate the fact that he did so. I can only think that the hon. member for Yeoville forgot to do so. If that was the position, the hon. member for Parktown made a rescue attempt, as it were. If the hon. member did not forget to do so, I can only think that he must have found that there was so little in the way of criticism or disparaging comment that he could level at us that he simply decided to leave it to someone else. One could also think of other reasons.

You are finding it difficult to talk about finances this afternoon.

Sir, during the past few weeks the hon. member has made two speeches in major debates. If I am correct, he devoted no more than ten or twelve minutes to a discussion of financial matters in both those speeches put together.

†Mr. Speaker, if I may say so, he is a good chap. I am just pulling his leg and he must not get upset about it! [Interjections.]

*At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Parktown commented on foreign investment in South Africa, comments which undoubtedly contribute to reducing the capital inflow. I am thinking, for example, of the notorious assertion he made when he said: “If I were clinically looking at South Africa I would tell people not to invest here.” When we then apply a policy which succeeds in adapting the economy to this reduced capital inflow—I think with great success—he then criticizes that successful policy. This is what he did. Should we not then have adapted to the changed circumstances? What should we have done? We know of course that the restricting fiscal and monetary policy had the effect of curbing overall spending, and therefore economic activity in general, but it was essential, I think, in the national interest. I think we are now reaping the benefits of that policy. But that does not mean to say that we are going to continue to damp the economy. On the contrary. Now that phase I of our policy has been successfully disposed of, we are already changing over to phase II, that of moderate stimulation. I announced this in November 1977 already. In other words, we have already shifted the emphasis to the promotion of moderate growth. The timing in this regard was and is however of the utmost importance. If we had stimulated too much too soon we would again have experienced problems in future. As I have said, we do not intend to continue to damp. The foundation has now been laid for the shift of emphasis to a sound expansion of economic activities. The current account, for example, shows an excellent surplus. The overall money supply is now rising at a rate of only approximately 7% per annum, whereas it rose by 23% per annum in 1973 and by 22% per annum in 1974. I think I can say therefore that the State’s finances are basically sound. Government expenditure is rising at a slower rate, and great success has been achieved with non-inflationary State loans on the capital market. Hence the shift in emphasis. I say again, however, that everything is not yet as it should be. There are still problems. The capital account of the balance of payments is rather disappointing. In 1977 there was, as I have already said, a net outflow, if one takes all the various types of capital into account. This is mainly due to the fact that we have repaid our short-term foreign loans on a large scale. The point I want to make is that we must maintain a balance in our policy objectives. We must retain a healthy perspective. Hence the decision to allow the emphasis to shift to the promotion of moderate economic growth. Simply because certain hon. members on the Opposition benches have asked what our policy is, I am furnishing this brief résumé again, although I am of the opinion that we have already made it abundantly clear.

†The hon. member for Durban Point expressed the view that this Government did not seem to be much concerned with the old people, the pensioners and certain others in our broad community.

That is true.

I am sure the hon. member sitting alongside him, who is an authority on these matters—and I recognize the fact—could help him with the figures.

The cost-of-living index has increased from 1970 to the present time by about 93%. Social pensions, on the other hand, have increased during the same period by 126%. Surely, given just one important index …

Have you worked out what is in the basket that the pensioner gets?

The hon. member did not say anything about baskets or about what there was in baskets. He made a general statement.

I am talking about realities.

I am specifically replying to him, in concrete figures, on the most important single matter he raised, i.e. pensions. The facts repudiate what he said. The facts show just the opposite; so the hon. member must not talk about baskets. We have had enough about baskets from the hon. member for Yeoville, who talks about baskets of currencies every time.

I said you treated people like statistics, and you are doing it again now.

When the hon. member for Durban Point talks like that, it sounds as if he has read some interesting modern-type novel and has found in it some phrase he is convinced he must bandy about somewhere; so he throws it into this debate. What does he mean by saying that people are statistics? It means precisely nothing!

*The hon. member for Walmer raised the question of the electrification of Soweto. I was asked what the position in that regard is. The position is that a certain firm instituted an investigation into the electrification of Soweto last year and then negotiated with a number of banks on the financing of this project. A consortium of banks under the direction of Barclays Bank then offered approximately R70 million for the financing of the project. That amount would have been made available as a medium-term loan over a period of eight years at an interest rate of approximately 12%. I, in my capacity as Minister of Finance, as well as the Secretary for Finance, have already indicated that if the interest rate is satisfactory the Treasury would be prepared to subsidize interest on the medium-term loan to a certain extent, because it is an important matter, and to replace the loan with a new long-term Government loan on the expiry date. However, the offer from the consortium of banks was not acceptable to the West Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board, inter alia, because it was not satisfied with certain technical aspects of the project and because the granting of the medium-term loan was made subject to the condition that a specific firm would undertake to do the work. The Bantu Affairs Administration Board then appointed its own consulting engineers to institute a thorough investigation into the electrification of Soweto. I expect to receive a copy of that report soon. However, it happened to come to our attention that the report is of a rather technical nature and that further attention will specifically have to be given to the financial aspects. It also appears that a new consortium of banks has made an offer to finance the project and that this offer consists of a long-term loan of 15 years at an interest rate of approximately 10%. Here we therefore have a case where, because we did not act over-hastily, it seems that we may perhaps be able to come forward with a far better project. The Treasury, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development— or rather, the Department of Plural Relations and Development—and others involved in the matter will soon thrash out this matter very thoroughly and we hope that we shall be able to arrive at a very sensible and valuable conclusion and then proceed with a thorough project.

How long will it take?

There has also been quite a lot of comment on the defence bonus bonds. In any event, the hon. member for Yeoville referred to these rather critically, particularly to the marketing of the scheme. Recently we have seen very critical reports in one or two newspapers on the same matter. I think that the facts in this regard have not been stated very clearly. Indeed, I think that in some cases the facts were anything but correct. I perceive a tendency in some of the newspaper reports to present the so-called deficiencies in the bonus bond issue to the reading public in such a way that what it really amounts to is subtle intercession for the introduction of a State lottery. I cannot believe that the criticism levelled at the present system has been well-considered or is intended to promote the scheme. On the contrary. Particularly in the case of one newspaper the authors of the articles are very ignorant of the provisions pertaining to the issuing of bonus bonds and the scores of attendant implications, or else a deliberate attempt is being made to bring the public round to a specific point of view. I do not want to go into all the various aspects of the scheme now. There will be other opportunities to do that. However, I do want to give hon. members the assurance that there is a group of officials in the Department of Finance that is co-operating very closely with the Department of Defence in this regard. Competent and senior officials devoted a great deal of time to this, and I am satisfied that the scheme is being managed in a responsible and competent way. I went into the matter and this is what I want to say about it By way of a general comment I want to draw attention to the fact that there is no precedent for the scheme in our country. The Treasury therefore realizes that there may be room for further adjustments and variations in order to make the scheme even more attractive to the public. We find ourselves in the position that we are still feeling our way as we go. Precisely because this was foreseen, a comprehensive market research project was launched three months ago, with my approval. We shall soon receive a report on that programme and I shall then see whether it is necessary, in view of that authoritative report, to effect further improvements in the marketing aspect of the bonus bond scheme. We are looking into this matter from day to day.

The hon. member for Pinetown referred, inter alia, in a very interesting maiden speech to rates of taxation and discussed the possibility of reducing the rates of taxation in the higher income groups. Perhaps I could, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, just refer to what I said in this connection last year during the Second Reading of the Income Tax Bill. I said—

That is what I said last year, and I also said this—

The hon. member for Mooi River also referred to this question, and implied that South Africans “are being overtaxed”. In any event, he said that the tax was too onerous. However, if one considers the average tax levied on the various categories of income, we shall see that our income tax compares favourably with that of most other countries. It is not sufficient—in fact it is not fair—to consider only the very highest marginal rate, where the marginal rate in respect of an income exceeding R28 000 is 72%. One should consider the average rate of taxation on the scale of income. Then one would have a better understanding of the matter, and see that we have a reasonable tax system. In fact, our taxes are lower than those of various other comparable countries. The figures are available.

†The question of gold processing and the possibility of a gold processing industry in South Africa is an interesting point which was raised by two or three hon. members in this debate, amongst them the hon. member for Walmer. This is in fact something that has been receiving quite a bit of attention, both officially and in the Chamber of Mines. The feasibility and the desirability of developing a gold processing industry in South Africa, in which the jewellery trade will play a very important part, is in fact being investigated by the Chamber of Mines and some other parties in close consultation with the Reserve Bank and the Treasury. It is true to say that it is not a simple matter. I can see advantages and I can see disadvantages at the moment, and no doubt opinions on the matter are considerably divided. It would clearly take time to develop such an industry, because many technicalities are involved. It would involve the importation of capital equipment and technicians, because very highly qualified people have to be involved in such a process. The scheme might be costly and it might require tariff protection, and that side must be investigated more fully. It would certainly mean competition from us for firms and organizations that have been operating in Italy, Israel and other countries for some time. These firms are currently playing an active role in promoting gold sales to our great advantage. The question is: Would it necessarily be in our interests now to cause those companies to have, what could be, pretty stiff competition from South Africa? We need to know for sure whether that would in fact advance the cause of gold in so far as advantages for South Africa are concerned. It might involve increased local purchases of processed gold articles. In other words, there might be more gold sold in South Africa and less abroad, so that we might lose foreign exchange in the process. These are possibilities and I do not say these things will necessarily take place. While there are certain disadvantages that must be clearly examined, there are also advantages involved. We shall put the one against the other and then take—particularly with the aid of the Chamber of Mines—a sensible decision. I can assure hon. members that the matter is very much under consideration.

As far as the gold and foreign exchange reserves are concerned, I do not want to say much more. It is true, however, that where the price of gold has been increasing very substantially in recent months, the question could be asked: How is it that our reserves of gold and foreign exchange have not risen? The main reason there is undoubtedly that we have been repaying short-term debts on a big scale. We are convinced it is a prudent and sound thing to do while we can afford it in the times in which we live. I can assure hon. members that this practice has made a great impression on financial circles outside the country and, I believe, in the country as well. That is the main reason for it I do not think it is correct to say about our reserves, as the hon. member for Parktown said: “Hulle is op ’n sorgwekkende peil.”

*I do not think it is correct to make such an assertion. The gold component of our reserves is still being valued at the old official gold price, i.e. at R29,55 per ounce. The present gold price is in the region of R175, up to R179 yesterday. If one revalues the gold portion of our reserves at the market price, the value of the reserves is in aggregate in the region of R2 000 million and not R620 million.

†One must distinguish between gross reserves, which are the figures we see, and net reserves, which are the net figures after short-term liabilities have been deducted. The net reserves are certainly improving and there is no doubt that that is the crucial figure. The more we can repay our foreign debt, the better the net reserve position will be—the figure that any person who is trying to assess our creditworthiness immediately looks at. In that respect there has been a considerable improvement.

I want to refer very briefly to a point raised by the hon. member for Simonstown. He referred to the remarkable issue of the Sunday Times the other day when the top half of the Business Times front page was tom off. I thought the person who delivered our paper was very careless and had, in the process of delivering the paper, tom the page off. After a while I discovered that three or four of my friends had exactly the same looking Sunday Times; it was mutilated. The Sunday Times, as the hon. member said, gave an extraordinary explanation, they said it was due to technical trouble and also that the paper was mutilated in the printing press. I grant the hon. member that he knows more about newspapers than I do, but there is no doubt that even with the little I know about newspapers, a newspaper cannot be looking like that after mutilation in the printing press.

Not half a million of them!

Not half a million of them. Therefore the Sunday Times really owes its readers and the country an explanation at this moment. I understood the Sunday Times to say that they were going to publish that tom-off report the following week. The following week has come and gone and we still have not seen it. In that report of the Sunday Times they referred to a firm of brokers and to the Stock Exchange a good deal. The Committee of the Stock Exchange would be a party that one would obviously wish to talk to about this. I have here the report of the firm of brokers, Ivor, Jones, Roy and Company Incorporated, Johannesburg. It is called “Financial Ratings”. They adopt a rather extraordinary approach. Normally an investment analyst or a broker would choose one or two companies and would analyse their financial position individually according to his methods. There are certain well-known methods, but the analysts do not all agree 100%. He would analyse the firm’s position and would put out a report to his clients stating that in regard to Company A they have done this and that and that they believe the firm’s financial position is as set out by them. They could do the same thing about Company B.

This particular group of brokers classified 211 companies into various groups. The interesting thing is that in classifying them they use their own way of establishing their “financial rating”, as they say. In assessing the firm’s financial position, they say the shareholders’ interest in the company has a weight of 25%; return on capital employed, 20%; total borrowings as a percentage of total liabilities, 15%; cash-flow to total borrowings, 15%; profit and loss gearing, 15%; current ratio, 10%; giving a total of 100. These are the weights in calculating the overall financial rating. That in itself is interesting and a bit unusual. I am not commenting on that at the moment, but hon. members will realize that it is a highly subjective way of assessing the financial result.

They furthermore group these 211 companies into a number of groups. The first group has 12 companies, the second has 26, the third 30 and so on. They group them, not in terms of financial strength—in other words stating their profitability, their return, their gearing, etc.—but in terms of risk. They start with companies with “almost negligible risk”. This group consists of 12 companies. The next group is companies with “extremely low risk” and comprises 26 companies. Then there is the group with a “very low risk” factor, which has 30 companies. The “low risk” group consists of 40 companies. The group classed as “moderate risk” has 35 companies. The “fairly high risk” group has 56 companies. Interestingly enough, companies such as AE Senator CI, Dunlop, Highveld, Sentrachem, Tiger Oats, Tongaat, ICS and Protea are considered as “fairly high risk” companies. There are also 38 “high risk” companies which include Safmarine, Plate Glass and Metal Box. There are 25 “very high risk” companies. Here we have some very interesting ones. The second last group is the “extremely high risk” companies. This group consists of 32 companies. Here we have Amaprop—the big property company—Anglo-Alpha Cement, Robbs, Beka, among others. Lastly there are the “inordinately high risk” companies. I do not think one can find stronger words. I would think that this means that the company has had it! [Interjections.] In this group there are 21 companies. For interest’s sake I would like to mention some of the companies in this group: Bester, Lengro, K Senator L Timber, Triomf and Premier Industries. They have arranged these companies in groups, in what they regard as riskiness, running up the scale, the last of which is “inordinately high risk”.

I have asked the Committee of the Stock Exchange to let me have their considered views as soon as possible on two things. Firstly, I want to know what they think of this way of assessing the financial rating of a whole number of companies, 211 of them, in one report, by putting all the companies in different groups according to risk. I want to know whether they are satisfied that this is a reliable, fair method of doing it and whether these results are something that one would responsibly look at. I would like a comment on this because I have never seen a report in this form myself. Secondly, I want the Committee of the Stock Exchange to tell me exactly what their view is of the action of the Sunday Times in publishing the findings and many other things about the report. A number of readers received those unmutilated copies of the Business Times. It is in circulation. I have a copy. I should particularly like to know, where this report states that it is “confidential and issued for the information of clients only”, what the Committee of the Stock Exchange thinks about those two important issues. As soon as I have received a reply, there will be another opportunity when I can carry the matter further with the House. I regard this as an extremely important and serious matter. People, amongst them at least two important overseas bankers, approached me expressing grave concern, saying that the economy must be in a very serious position if this can be the case with the companies which are listed here. One wants to know more about it, what the reasons and motives behind the Sunday Times report were. I shall certainly do all I can to clear up this matter in the interests of the sound administration of our economy and of investors and would-be investors who are all—and this is important— entitled to reliable, unbiased and responsible facts.

I want to refer to another matter. I singled out certain matters which I thought I might be expected to comment upon. I am sorry that due to my limited time I cannot cover all the interesting points which have been raised. Hon. members have raised issues which I may not have time to comment upon. I hope they will excuse me. I shall be only too pleased if they pursue and discuss these issues with me, perhaps even in the course of later debates.

The hon. member for Yeoville suggested that tax concessions should be given aimed at the employment of new labour over and above existing numbers of workers employed at any particular time. Regarding the incentives aimed at increasing employment opportunities similar to those which the hon. member has said are in force in some other countries, the position is that this matter is one of many which are being examined by the Department of Inland Revenue and have been examined for some months. It may be added that this matter is not as simple as it may appear at first blush. If I correctly understood him, the hon. member said that tax concessions should be given in the same way as the investment allowance which is given for machinery. However, there is in fact no analogy. He will, it is assumed, be aware of the substantial incentive allowances which are already granted to manufacturers in the economic development areas. This matter is under examination and has been for some time. I do not think it is on a par with the other types of important incentive allowances we already have. I think one must bear that point in mind.

I want to return very briefly to the question of the exchange rate of the rand. The hon. member for Yeoville did not seem to be very happy with my explanation of how I see this. He came back to the point that he thought we should link the rand to a so-called basket of currencies. I have already made my point in some detail and I do not want to traverse that ground again. However, it shows just how people can differ on this issue. The hon. member said that he thought the rand should be linked to a basket of currencies, and shortly after that the hon. member for Constantia said he thought that the rand might well be linked to a base connected with the Kruger rand. Those are two very different issues. It just shows how opinions do differ on this important issue. It is not so much a question of where particularly the rand is linked; it is really a question of a practical technique one is trying to find. One is trying to find a price for the most important commodity one has, viz. one’s currency unit. The question is how one values it when one feels that at this moment in one’s economy one perhaps has not yet got a sufficiently well-developed foreign exchange market to give one at any moment an entirely reliable value for that rand.

If the market mechanism is such that the rand is not reliably determined or valued at the moment, one can do tremendous harm to the economy, as can be imagined. All one’s foreign exchange transactions must immediately be at risk as a result. That is why we are moving carefully, but fast in the matter. The De Kock Commission is looking at the matter as a matter of priority, as I have tried to explain, and I have asked that commission to let me have, if it is at all possible, an interim report on this issue of exchange rate policy as such. I spoke to the chairman of the commission again this morning. He assures me that the commission is very well aware of the importance and urgency of the matter and that they are giving priority to it. I hope that hon. members will feel that that is probably as far as I can take the matter at the moment. Obviously the exchange rate question cannot be separated completely from other questions of monetary policy. One cannot simply deal with it in a vacuum. The exchange rate, the money supply, the level of interest rates, taxation policy, are all in a measure inter-related. But as I say, I accept the importance and the urgency of the matter and it is being dealt with on that basis.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he envisages as a result of his discussions with the chairman of the commission that this interim report might be available during this session of Parliament?

It is difficult to give an answer. I shall pursue that matter with the commission. If it is at all possible, however, then I can say “Yes”, because I would certainly welcome that myself. I think that the commission, as I sensed it this morning, will most certainly try to do just that. It is a comprehensive matter, but I know for certain that they will give all the attention they can to it as fast as they can.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hold up proceedings any longer. I thank you for your indulgence. As I say, there are some other matters which we could discuss. I thought that just by way of general comment at the end I would like to say how much I appreciate the interest which hon. members have taken in this debate and to say once again how much I have enjoyed listening to the number of maiden speeches which we have heard in this House, which I think without exception, were excellent. I believe that if we can deal with these matters with this sense of responsibility, if we, no matter what our views may be—we are bound to differ on important issues of policy; I do not think that is the issue—can adopt a constructive approach, especially when we are dealing with technical issues that are so important that if one takes the wrong decision one can do one’s economy harm and therefore one’s country, and if we can all adopt that spirit in discussing these matters, we can only progress to the advantage of the country.

*I want to thank all hon. members sincerely for their interest and their contributions. I look forward to debating similar and other matters in this House, hopefully to the benefit of us all and therefore of our country as well.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—107: Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. 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.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. P. A. Reyneke, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and J. A. van Tonder.

Noes—25: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question affirmed and amendments dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we have had a substantial discussion on this matter at Second Reading and at the Committee Stage, and we have voiced our objections to this Bill before us. I want to say, on behalf of this side of the House, that despite the eloquence at the command of the hon. the Minister, he has not been able to bring us around to his point of view or to satisfy us with regard to the objections that we have lodged. More particularly, he has failed to satisfy us that this measure is in fact really necessary or that he does not have sufficient powers himself to carry out the measures he requires, and we are convinced that this Bill will not improve relations between this administration and local authorities or between this administration and the provincial authorities. The hon. the Minister has told us—and we accept what he says—that there will always be consultation with the local authorities in so far as these measures are concerned. With respect, however, the question of consultation is not written into this legislation at all. It remains purely at the whim and fancy of the individual who is to carry this out and his department whether or not this consultation will be carried out. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, if I may, whether he places any reliance on the will of local authorities. As he well knows, they have bodies constituted on a provincial basis as well as a unifying body under the United Municipal Executive. I seem to get the impression—and I hope the hon. the Minister will allay that impression and fear that I have—that where the United Municipal Executive say that they agree to a measure and approve of it, we are told with great alacrity that it has the approval of that body and of the local authorities, but that where such approval is not obtained from that organization, we hear nothing but silence, as indeed we heard in regard to this measure. I cannot and do not believe for one moment that this is a measure which will be lightly accepted by local authorities in South Africa, and it does affect every local authority in every single province. I do not think they will accept the fact that their powers are to be curtailed, in fact that the powers they have exercised over all these years are now to be taken away from them. I think they have always guarded against the erosion of powers exercised at a local level.

Let me therefore say with great respect that I cannot accept that this will improve existing relationships. I accept that there may, in a few cases, be local authorities which have not toed the line to the satisfaction of the hon. the Minister and his department. However, instead of getting those few to do what is necessary—and I am sure this can be done by consultation—the force of law is now being placed on every single local authority in South Africa by this measure. Accommodation and town planning are important when there are shortages of housing, so no local authority will lightly grant a permit for the demolition of dwellings when it knows that there is a shortage of housing or other accommodation. A local authority will jealously guard the interests of its inhabitants and see to it that accommodation is, in fact, granted, and the local authority concerned will probably know best about other accommodation which may possibly be available. I do not think it can rightfully be said, particularly in regard to most of the larger centres, that there is a shortage of accommodation as far as the White section of the population is concerned. There were times, years ago, when there was such a shortage and accommodation was unavailable. In such cases, however, people’s interests are jealously guarded. What I think we are doing here is taking a sledge-hammer to kill a fly in the sense that we are imposing upon all local authorities. In fact, we are actually punishing all local authorities because of the actions of a few. For those reasons we stand opposed to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I know it was the view of the hon. Minister that authority would not as a result of this legislation be removed from the hands of local authorities. But no matter how one looks at this legislation, one comes to the conclusion that in its implementation, authority will in fact be removed from the hands of local authorities. In view of the fact that we in the NRP are strongly in favour of the extension of powers and responsibilities entrusted to local authorities, we will object to the Third Reading of this Bill.

I appreciate the problem which the hon. Minister has to contend with. I realize that unnecessary demolition entails serious dangers, but as far as we are concerned the method he is going to apply here, is contrary to certain basic principles which we support. It is for that reason that we object to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have again listened with due attention to the objections raised by the Opposition, but I do not think that I can change the standpoint which I have repeatedly stated in the House. My friend, the hon. member from Hillbrow, has come up with a new emphasis—the argument has already been used—that we do not have the support of the local authorities in connection with this matter. It is true that the United Municipal Executive is opposed to the Bill, but we have carefully weighed their objections. In our view their objections are, however, not convincing and for that reason we are going ahead with the Bill. The hon. member must realize one thing, namely that the hon. Prime Minister has laid down the functions of the department, and that one of the important functions which he has assigned to the department, is that we must assume overall responsibility for housing in South Africa. When such an obligation has been imposed on one, one must assume it and give effect to it. I am always willing to listen to the problems and difficulties of local authorities and to take their opposition into account, but in the last resort the onus is on me and my department to carry out our overall responsibility. That is what we are doing in this instance. We cannot do otherwise. Our duty compels us. Even if the hon. member should vote against the Bill at the Third Reading, I hope that he will appreciate our viewpoint.

I think I have also replied to the hon. member of the NRP. The same argument applies in his case, that the responsibility of making the final decision rests on us and not on the municipalities. For that reason we will go ahead with this.

The hon. member for Durban Central has also referred again to the fact that consultation has not been written into the Bill and that there is therefore no guarantee that the necessary consultation will in fact take place. He must keep in mind, however, that in respect of these matters there has to be such a close relationship between the department and the local authorities, that consultation is really unavoidable. It is not possible to implement legislation such as this unless there is constant and continual consultation. This has been built into the relationship between the Department of Community Development and the local authorities. The hon. member need not accept my word for that. It is not done on the grounds of a decision by the Minister or the department; from the nature of our relationship with the local authorities, it is unavoidable that this should happen. So, as far as this is concerned, we might as well differ. I am sorry, but for those reasons I cannot say that I am over-impressed by the arguments of the hon. members of the other side.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday I raised a number of points in connection with clause 1. I just want to summarize the view of the hon. members on this side of the House in connection with this matter. I wish to repeat that we regard the autonomy of local authorities as very important We note with appreciation that the hon. the Minister identifies himself with that view. We think that this autonomy should not be tampered with unless it is absolutely unavoidable. In our view there is no indication in the Fouché Report that efforts to obtain the cooperation of local authorities had been without success and that coercion through legislation had therefore become unavoidable. For that reason we cannot support this measure.

As far as the proposed new subsection (2) is concerned, in our view it does not offend against any principle. It is purely a measure whereby it is intended to obtain information. The amendment I wish to propose in respect thereof, will merely have the effect that such information will only be obtained in isolated cases and by request of the Secretary of the department, and that there will not be a continuous duty on the part of local authorities to supply this information every year. We think that this measure will result in additional work for the department and for local authorities.

We also think that local authorities who stubbornly refuse to carry out their duties in this respect, will actually not report the need and the real situation to the department in such a manner that it will enable the department properly to perform its functions. As the situation is now, we think that problem cases will only come to the notice of the department by way of complaints. If, therefore, complaints come to the notice of the department that in certain cases the provision of housing or residential stands is not satisfactory, the Secretary can in these instances call for information from the local authorities in order that he may act in terms of this legislation. I therefore move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Green Point. I have also given carefully consideration to his amendment. I do not interpret his amendment as widely as he himself does, but the way he has worded it, is interesting. In view of the fact that my hon. friends of the PFP have had such an unhappy Parliamentary session up to now, I am now going to gladden their hearts by accepting the amendment. [Interjections.]

I now come to the amendments moved by my hon. friend on behalf of the NRP. He moved three amendments. The first amendment reads to insert on page 2, in line 17, after “Secretary” the words “made after consultation with the said local authority”. I want to assure the hon. member that there is always consultation, but in this case I think it makes sense that there should be special consultation before the specific deed is done. For that reason I am pleased to say that I accept this amendment as well. The hon. member also moved the omission of the following words on page 3, in lines 21 and 22, “and of a specified size and within a specified price range”. In other words, where the Secretary requests a local authority to make available residential erven, my hon. friend would like to see the deletion of the provision that such erven shall be of a specified size and within a specified price range. I am very sorry, but in this case I am unable to comply with his request. I hope my hon. friend realizes that if I were to accept this amendment, I would destroy the whole principle of the Bill by means of which I want to solve the problem. The very problem, as I said during the Second Reading, is that local authorities may perhaps be more willing to make available the larger erven on which higher assessment rates can be levied and in respect of which people are better able to pay, whereas they are less eager to look after the people who require smaller erven, for example sub-economic erven, erven which are not profitable to the municipality. Consequently it is necessary for the Secretary to have the right to specify the price range and the size of the erven and for this reason, and this my friend will understand, it is impossible for me to accept this amendment.

He also moved the deletion on page 3, in lines 18 and 19, of the words “a specified population group” and the substitution of the words “the inhabitants of its district”. This, of course, is consistent with the new philosophy of my hon. friends on the opposite side, and consequently I understand why they moved the amendment. But unfortunately I have to act according to the actual situation existing in South Africa today. The reality is that there are population groups whose housing needs are greater than those of others. In terms of the laws of the country those groups, in our urban areas in particular, must be provided with housing in special areas. I trust that this will never happen, but in any event, I cannot permit a municipality, if for example, an acute shortage of housing for Coloured people existed and the Secretary requested that erven be made available for that purpose, to make available only— because it was not specified—expensive erven which only rich White people can buy. This is a special problem with which I have to contend, and I must find a special solution to that problem. I definitely believe that with the present wording of the Bill, we shall be able to find the solutions more easily than with the amendments moved by the hon. member. So the Opposition scores 50%; they tried four times and they succeeded twice. Therefore they pass.

Mr. Chairman, naturally I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept the first amendment, because the amendment introduces the element of consultation. One obviously would have preferred to see perhaps an even stronger stipulation there, to the effect that it should be “in consultation with” or “with the concurrence of”, but nevertheless I am pleased that the principle that consultation must take place, is established.

I am rather disappointed that the hon. the Minister did not see his way clear to accepting our second amendment. A local authority must, of course, make available sites and residential land for its inhabitants. This has always been the case since 1934. I still feel, however, that to demand that a local authority should now provide sites and land for a specific group of people in terms of the Government’s policy—especially if these people are not part of its inhabitants—constitutes interference from the top which is totally unacceptable to the NRP. We believe in local option and to us this is very much like wielding the big stick, if I could use that expression. We also believe that if we want to improve race relations on a wider front, we must make it possible for each local authority to be placed in a position to exercise local option. For that reason I want to appeal once again to the hon. the Minister to consider this and, at a later stage, to make it possible for the principle of local option to be applied.

Mr. Chairman, after our first objection to the legislation during the Second Reading debate, the hon. the Minister said—

He went on to say—

It is gladdening to note that we did not oppose the legislation purely for the sake of opposing after all, and that the proof is to be found in the fact that the hon. the Minister saw fit to accept some of our amendments. We owe him a debt of gratitude for that.

The actual point made in this regard, is that local authorities are much better able to see to the interests of the community. It is generally accepted that this is so and we find hon. members on this side of the House becoming increasingly more anxious about the increasing authority of the central Government over local authorities. From the debate the day before yesterday we deduced that this anxiety was being expressed not only by hon. members on this side of the House, and to prove this I want to quote from the speech made by the hon. member for Pinetown. I know this does not refer specifically to this legislation, but the principle does apply. He says—

On that same day the hon. member for Umlazi said—

Mr. Chairman, this anxiety is being expressed by hon. members on this side of the House, and also by hon. members on that side. I think in this case, and also with regard to other legislation, the hon. the Minister could have paid more attention to that.

In support of his legislation the hon. the Minister went on to say that the department had no quarrel with local authorities. In the report it is stated that most local authorities had religiously fulfilled their obligations and in fact wanted to do so. In those instances where local authorities had not fulfilled their obligations, this could be ascribed to a shortage of manpower and other acceptable reasons. Therefore it would appear that the local authorities were acquitting themselves reasonably well of their task. I have a quotation here in this regard but in order to save time, I shall not use it. [Interjections.]

You are making a Second Reading speech.

I am actually trying to get to the point. [Interjections.] It has been said that the department is better able to look after the interests of the people in their local environments. What worries me, however, is that there have been so many instances where it has been proved that this is not the case. In this regard one thinks for example of an instance here in Cape Town, District Six. To people who are resident in the Cape, it is of course fairly alarming to see what the situation is in District Six after the Department of Community Development has taken over and tried to manage its clearance. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister for the concessions he has made. We appreciate it, and it would have been a good thing if the hon. Minister had taken the same view in connection with previous legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg has spoken in great detail and has almost discussed the principle of the Bill again. We do have sympathy with him, however, especially as he is a young member. He must realize one thing, however, and that is that I fully agree with the standpoint of the hon. member for Pinetown concerning the importance of local authorities and their intimate knowledge of local conditions. But the hon. member should realize that housing in South Africa is no longer a local problem today. It is a national problem of great magnitude. The local authorities themselves do not finance the housing which they make available to the less privileged. It is not their money. Every penny which the municipalities use for housing of that nature, is obtained from the Department of Community Development, from the Central Government. So how can the hon. member think that we are not jointly responsible? Do we not perhaps have the greatest measure of responsibility? I do agree with the hon. member that if the circumstances which have to be taken into account, were of a purely local nature, his argument would have been absolutely correct, and I would not have had an answer thereto. But it is not only a matter for the local authorities. The provision of housing is a national matter today, one of extreme importance, and the financial responsibility for the provision of housing is that of the central Government. In connection with these matters there is a close relationship between the local authorities and the central authority, and that relationship must also be evident in the legislation regulating the implementation of policy and the provision of what is necessary.

For that reason I can unfortunately not agree with the hon. member. But I do have sympathy with him. I think he failed to realize for a moment the magnitude of the responsibility of the central Government in regard to the question of housing. The hon. member asked me to bear in mind other measures mentioned by him, but I implore him when he talks about these matters in future, to do his homework and to realize that the State has a much greater responsibility than the local authorities when it comes to the provision of housing.

My hon. friend from Durban Central raised one new argument, and that was the question that land for housing be made available to other authorities and bodies. It sounds somewhat strange, but this is unavoidable and did in fact happen when there was not yet legislation in connection with the matter. It will be impossible to counter the problem, for example here in the Cape Peninsula, unless there is co-operation with the various municipalities and unless they assist one another. I want to point out a few examples which he may have overlooked.

They can decide about that themselves.

No, this is a problem which is being experienced throughout the country. It is a vast problem. Must I repeat what I said during the Second Reading debate?

[Inaudible.]

I have to repeat it, because hon. members do not want to listen nor do they want to understand. Between now and the end of the century—that is within 22 years—we have to build as many houses for the South African nation as have been built since the day Jan van Riebeeck landed here. A single small local authority does not know everything about the problem and cannot solve it on its own. Surely there must be overall supervision, planning and regulation of matters which might lead to a weakening of our planning. That will happen unless there is correlation. It will be impossible to budget for the problem unless we receive the information in good time. Moreover, it would attempt to isolate the problem into small sections, whereas it is in fact a national, continuous and inseparable problem to every city council, divisional council and citizen of South Africa. I wish we would argue with the realization at the back of our minds of the magnitude of the problem, of the vast challenge we are facing and not try to score petty political points off one another.

I want to refer to Belhar as an example. The Cape Divisional Council and local authorities, all of which are displaying a commendable attitude, are making provision for housing in Belhar for surplus Coloureds. The fine Mitchell’s Plain and the spectacular Atlantis would not have been possible if only a single municipality or only a single local authority would have had to tackle the whole task. They have to help one another. The divisional councils and municipalities as far as Darling have to co-operate. I ask hon. members of this House and plead with them to approach housing as a vast national problem in which the local authorities can play a particularly important and highly appreciated role.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper agreed to.

On amendment (2) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper,

Question put: That the words stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—104: Ballot, G. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, P. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; 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.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. P. A. Reyneke, N. F. Treurnicht, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe and J. A. van Tonder.

Tellers: B. W. B. Page and P. A. Pyper.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. S. S. van der Merwe agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very interesting Bill before the House. It is interesting when one bears in mind that while on the one hand the Official Opposition is totally opposed to the Bill, on the other hand, the tourism industry and the Department of Tourism are in agreement with the principle of the Bill.

Are you surprised?

Yes, I am surprised. It is surprising because the entire industry is in favour of this Bill. The secretary of the department has put his heart and soul into this Bill. The principles of the Bill are simple and straightforward and I would like to deal with these principles one by one. I will also deal with the problems that this Bill creates subsequently.

The Bill was designed to improve the standards in the tour guide industry and to increase the quality of the men operating this industry. It was also designed to increase the availability of men and to allow Tour Guide Associations to discover where men of this exceptional ability could be found. The second reason why it was created was to create stability in the industry and to create a professionalism and a status amongst the employees in this particular industry. The third reason is to offer protection to a bona fide tourist. It should offer this protection to the extent that a tourist will know full well, when he sees a person wearing the badge or possessing the certificate, that he is dealing with a recognized and authorized tour guide.

The fourth point—and this seems to be the contentious one—is the possibility of a tour guide criticizing the Government or, in fact, creating a situation where it could bring the Government or this country into disrepute. Let us examine whether the Bill does all that it sets out to do. The answer is: To a large extent, yes. Does it sow confusion in the industry? Here too the answer is yes. This is the problem.

What is at stake is the execution of the Bill. I have had long discussions with the Secretary for Tourism, Mr. Theo Behrens, who is highly respected in the industry. Every person to whom I spoke believes that Mr. Behrens is doing a tremendous job and that a professional man like him is really needed as secretary in most of the departments of the country. The situation is that the industry entirely agrees with him, but they have not seen the Bill and the details. This is where the Bill is at fault. The details of the Bill could, in fact, be discussed during the Committee Stage, but I think we should deal with it at Second Reading because of the possible problem areas which are found in it.

The first problem area was very well highlighted and carefully by our hon. friends to my right. They made the point related to the definition of a tour guide. This definition has son considerable confusion. It is a very poorly-worded definition. It is so poorly defined that every hon. member in the Chamber could, in fact, be classified as a tour guide.

How would you change it?

I shall get to that in a second. I shall deal with it towards the end of my speech. On second thoughts, I think I will tell the hon. member right now. [Interjections.] The simple solution to the problem is to omit the words “whether or not”. If the hon. member would read the Bill, he would see how simple it is to put the matter right. Let us take an ornithologist who wishes to take a group of bird-watchers to a pond.

Or to Sandy Bay.

Yes, or to Sandy Bay to watch that kind of bird. Such an ornithologist would have to be classified as a tour guide, or else he and the people going with him could have a fine of R500 imposed upon them.

But do you not think you should read clause 5 before you say things like that?

Just give him a chance.

I have read clause 5! There are many examples of people who will have to be classified as tour guides. I am not saying that the hon. the Minister or the Secretary for Tourism would impose this, but the definition is so wide and it encompasses such a wide field that it is actually impossible to implement it. As I have said, the words “whether or not” need to be omitted.

I must point out, however, that even if the hon. the Minister agreed to have those words omitted, he still would have problems, because 50% or more of all tour guides are temporary. They are part-time employees of the tour guide industry. The problem with these people are that they are students …

Some of them are very good.

They are very good students.

Some of them.

These students are however not prepared to write an examination. In fact, they would not even be prepared to follow a course. All they are interested in is to be rewarded over the short period of two months. On the other hand they are fulfilling a great need in the industry. Should the provisions of the Bill be made applicable to them, they would have to get themselves classified. That, of course, presents a serious problem to the industry. These points the industry has raised with me. I am not a specialist in this field and thus went to the specialists and they made these remarks.

There is another major aspect which they mentioned. At the moment the majority of tours to this country are from the Argentine, and all those groups require Spanish interpreters. Spanish interpreters come with the groups as guides. These groups will not come to this country without their guides because they have to do virtually everything, from ordering their meals to putting them to bed. The interpreters have to come along, but they will not be able to get themselves registered as tour guides or accompany the groups in terms of this definition. I may be entirely wrong, but as I read the definition those interpreters could not accompany the groups as tour guides.

The third point that was mentioned, was the possible muzzling of tour guides. I believe this is really an academic question. I do not think it is all that serious because I have never come across a South African who, while speaking to foreigners, has not put South Africa’s case first I therefore do not believe that we need to muzzle anybody in this country who is a South African.

Hear, hear!

I have come across many members of my party, of the PFP and of the NP who have gone overseas, and on each occasion I have found them all sounding like one great big bunch of Nats in their defence of the country. I am therefore quite sure that it will not be necessary to have tour guides muzzled.

I have discussed this matter with the tourist industry and have been told that this is not a serious problem because they have always instructed their guides not to discuss politics with tourists. I therefore implore the hon. the Minister not to stir up any political issues in this regard. If the tour guide were to say, e.g., that he was not in favour of the banning of films on Sundays, he would not be hauled over the coals. I am sure that neither the secretary nor the registrar would take that amiss.

I am quite sure.

That, in any event, is what I am assuming.

What would he then take amiss? You do not tell us.

He would obviously take it amiss if a tour guide began running this country down in general. I am positive, however, that the legislation was not elicited for that reason.

There is, however, a far more serious problem, and I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Transport is not here because that problem relates to the Railways. If this legislation is to be effectively implemented, Railway tour guides will have to be registered and classified as tour guides. The entire industry, however, says it wants no part of this Bill if the SAR tour guides are not registered and classified members of the Tour Guide Association. The reason for this is that the SAR is undercutting the industry as it is. The quality of their tour guides is poor at this stage, because the SAR faces the same problem as the industry does to find good quality manpower.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he could indicate to us where, in this Bill, there is the requirement that a tour guide must write an examination?

That is a technical question which is not contained in the Bill, but I have been informed that this is in the regulations. In fact, the secretary told me that he would be instituting a six weeks course and that prospective tour guides would be required to write some form of examination. It is not in the Bill but I am sure it is the intention of the Bill that there shall be some form of examination. That, however, will be contained in the regulations and is not at issue here now. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could clarify this matter?

He should do his homework before the time. I cannot do his homework for him.

He has done it very well.

The S.A. Railways’ tour guides will have to fall within the ambit of file Bill as well. I should like to get an assurance from the hon. the Minister that that will in fact be done. I am sorry to say that the entire industry would be most upset if this Bill were passed without the S.A. Railways’ tour guides being brought fully into it.

A fifth factor which may create problems is the possible increase in costs involved. The tour guide people have indicated that their costs might be increased since they may have to employ two tour guides where they normally employ one. Overseas groups almost invariably insist on brining their tour guide with them. If they are doing a round-the-world tour, they often have a person with them. This means that an additional tour guide will now have to be added to the tour. I can only ask the hon. the Minister and the Secretary to look at this side of the question. I ask them not to increase the cost involved because that would have a detrimental effect on the industry as a whole.

The sixth point I wish to raise is again contentious. It concerns clauses 12 and 13 which provide for a penalty of R500 which may be imvosed in certain circumstances on either the employer or the employee. Let us take as an example a person who lands at Jan Smuts airport and, having only 24 hours at his disposal before he skips off to Hong Kong, hails a taxi and says to the taxi driver: “Take me across Johannesburg and show me the sights.” If the taxi driver does so, and for instance drives him to Pretoria and generally shows him the sights, the employer, viz. the tourist, as well as the employee, viz. the taxi driver, could be fined R500.

No, that will not happen.

The hon. member says that that will not happen, but it is a possibility. It could happen in terms of this Bill, and we are looking at the Bill and not at what may or may not happen in fact. It may be far fetched, but provision is made for that in the Bill and, that being so, it must come out because such a thing could happen. [Interjections.] In terms of the definition in the Bill, the taxi driver would certainly be considered a tour guide and consequently both he and his passenger could be fined.

Sir, we do not wish to oppose the Bill totally, because we agree with the principle involved and with the purpose for which the Bill was designed. I should therefore respectfully like to ask the hon. the Minister to indicate to us in his reply whether he is prepared to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after the Second Reading, that is before the Committee Stage. I should like to move, or rather suggest to him respectfully, that he consider the position and refer this Bill to a Select Committee before the Committee Stage is taken.

Mr. Speaker, I am rather glad in one way that the Second Reading debate on this Bill was interrupted, because I think that the hon. the Minister may have had a chance between the time when the Second Reading was first moved and the present time to have another good look at the Bill and reconsider its implications. I hope he has now realized that there is a lot wrong with the Bill. I agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South that the Bill was probably put forward in good faith by the department, but I must say that we in these benches have very great difficulties indeed with this Bill. Firstly, we disagree with it in principle. We do not believe that this Bill is necessary. Unlike the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, we do not believe that the whole tourist industry as such supports the Bill. Our information is exactly to the contrary, namely that there are many of them who are very unhappy with the Bill as it stands before us at the moment. When we look at the Bill we wonder: What are we really going to achieve? We are trying to achieve something good for the tourist industry and we are trying to build up that industry.

Do you suggest we are doing something quite unprecedented?

Not at all. In fact we think that what you are doing is wasting money. If the hon. the Minister wants to use money productively, he must try to uplift the standards of tour guides. As my friend, the hon. member for Green Point, has suggested, what we should be doing is to run courses for tour guides. However, the ambit of this Bill as it stands … Does the hon. the Minister want to ask a question?

What makes you think that we do not run courses?

Sorry, can I hear that again?

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister sits there and mumbles and it is very difficult for me to hear. However, I think the tenor of his question was: “What makes you think that we do not run courses?” If they are running courses, good for them. This is the way to build up standards in the industry. If the new Tour Guides Association wants professional recognition it is a different matter.

Firstly, I want to take up a point which has been raised by other hon. members from this side of the House. This again concerns the definition of “tour guide”. I think the hon. the Minister must by now have had the time to look at that definition. Therefore, he can perhaps indicate to me by nodding his head whether he is going to be prepared to accept an amendment in this definition because I am sure he understands that that definition is far too wide. The hon. the Minister took exception to the fact that my colleague, the hon. member for Groote Schuur, suggested that this Bill was designed to muzzle people. The hon. the Minister said by way of interjection that it was not designed to muzzle people. However, when I look at this definition I cannot believe that we are prepared to consider passing anything like this through the House. I would like to read the definition of “tour guides” again—

In other words this has nothing to do with professionalism as it applies to anybody and not the generally understood definition of a tour guide—

Let us take this to the ridiculous extreme. Let us assume I say to my wife one morning: “Let us go and visit the garden.” We then go down there to look at the dahlias. I then say to my wife: “The dahlias are looking very well.” I am making comment, as would any person visiting the garden or any other place in South Africa. I am making comment because I am saying: “They are beautiful dahlias, are they not?” However, suddenly someone leaps from behind a gooseberry bush and he says: “I am an officer of the Department of Tourism who has been authorized by the Secretary for Tourism in terms of section 8 of the Tour Guides Act to demand that you exhibit to me your certificate of registration issued in terms of section 7 of the Act.”

That is what the law requires.

I tell this ridiculous story to indicate to the hon. the Minister how really stupid this definition is. I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister really means that we should pass a clause of this nature.

It is fatuous.

It is absolutely fatuous, as my hon. colleague says. The hon. the Minister in an interjection during the previous speech, suggested that one should take a look at clause 5. With respect, I think the hon. the Minister is trying to get out of the situation in which he now finds himself by means of a technical argument and I do not think it will wash. Clause 5 provides that—

However, I want the hon. the Minister to be very clear about one thing. He must also read clause 11(1) which provides categorically that—

As long as we have that wide definition of tour guides, where does it get us? It takes us into the realms of fairyland.

We have other quarrels with the details of this Bill. For instance, we wonder in what sort of terms the regulations are going to be framed. What sort of professional standards are going to be laid down? Is the hon. the Minister going to use professional standards laid down by the Tour Guides Association? Normally when one has a professional Bill of this nature, where one is trying to keep up certain standards, one consults the professional body concerned. One takes note of their rules and regulations for membership. One therefore looks at the standards they set themselves, not the standards the Government sets.

Did you read the Bill?

I have read every word of the Bill and the hon. the Minister knows it well. This is, however, his standard interjection when he really is in trouble and when he knows he is in trouble. If one looks at this particular clause, the question arises: What professional standard is the hon. Minister going to set by regulation? Every professional organization Bill that I know of lets the profession itself set the standards and then provides the legal backing for those standards. This does not, however, happen in this Bill. The Bill states that the Minister shall, as he deems fit, divide into certain classes certain categories of tour guides. If a tour guide behaves badly—I do not know what he is actually supposed to have done— he can be deregistered, just like that, because it is provided that if the registrar considers it to be in the public interest for such a tour guide not to operate as a tour guide, he shall deregister him. Who is the Registrar of Tour Guides to decide what is in the public interest? I would like to know from the hon. the Minister. I am referring to clause 9(1), which states—

This is an extraordinary situation when a Registrar of Tour Guides has to decide what the public interest is or what it is not. This Bill does create the situation where an appeal is possible, but think of the difficulties involved in making an appeal to the hon. Minister; think of the additional work.

All in all we see the Bill as a Bill of creeping bureaucracy, a Bill which comes from the sort of mentality that we see so often from the other side of the House. They have the desire to control every aspect of our lives and we do not need this control. This sort of control costs money and we do not believe that in our present circumstances South Africa has the money for this sort of thing. We also believe that it will be detrimental to the tourist industry and to South Africa itself. I want to remind the hon. Minister that there is one other country that has ultimate control over tour guides. If one visits that country, so I have heard, because I have not been there, one has to have a Government-sponsored guide accompanying one. That country is Russia, with their In-tourist operation. This is the sort of practice one finds in all extremist regimes and I would not like to see the hon. Minister fall into that trap.

You fill me with despair; you are so irresponsible.

The hon. Minister may say that he listens with despair to irresponsible statements, but I think it is he who is being irresponsible by introducing a Bill with such an unbelievably wide ambit into the House. I cannot see it having any real benefit to the tourist industry; I think it is the height of irresponsibility. I can only reiterate the sentiments expressed by other hon. members in these benches, that we disagree with the Bill in principle because we believe it will do damage to the tourist industry, to South Africa and to the name of South Africa. We disagree in many matters of detail, because we believe they are ill-advised and ill-thought out. We will argue them during the Committee Stage and we will introduce amendments, but certainly as it stands at the moment, we can in no way support the Bill, and I have much pleasure in supporting the speeches made by the hon. members for Green Point and Groote Schuur in saying that we shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg South and Orange Grove should be making a mountain out of a molehill, because in his Second Reading speech the Minister made it clear that when the Bill was being planned, its principles were determined in consultation with the interested groups. I believe the experts whom the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South consulted were individuals who dislike the legislation for some reason or another. What is this Bill about? The Bill is primarily aimed at giving professional status to the tourist industry. Until now this type of control over tour guides has not existed. A National Tour Guide Society was established for the first time last year to discipline them. After long consideration and at the request of the industry, the hon. the Minister introduced legislation this year to make the disciplining of tour guides compulsory.

The provisions of the Bill only apply to organized tours. The hon. members for Groote Schuur and Orange Grove presumed that it would also apply to their wives taking tourists on a tour. Clause 11(3), however, provides for applications for exemption for students or temporary tour guides. Therefore, hon. members need not be so concerned about this.

It is very important for our tour guides to be of good quality, because the Department of Tourism plays a very important role in our country. In 1976 tourism was the industry which earned the fourth largest amount in foreign currency for our country, viz. an amount of R275 million. For this reason it is important for the department and especially for tour guides to be of a very high standard. A tour guide plays an important role during a tour and it is important that they give visitors reliable information on tours.

There are at present about 423 tour guides in South Africa, 140 of whom are full-time tour guides. It is, unfortunately, a fact that some of these tour guides can do a lot of harm if they are not trained and controlled properly. For that reason it is important that a tour guide accompanying a group of tourists should have sound knowledge of his subject and the history of the subject. Therefore I cannot understand why the PFP and the NRP oppose this legislation. We support this Bill and agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member and the department that we are giving tour guides professional status and protecting the industry with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, three members, the hon. members for Vasco, Krugersdorp and Roodepoort, made their maiden speeches during this debate. They have already been congratulated by the speakers following them, but I also want to add my congratulations to the rest. I believe objective hon. members of the House will agree with me that these three members really set an example of how one should know one’s subject and how one should take the trouble to do some research before venturing to express opinions in this Assembly of our nation without considering that one’s opinions may be based on wrong information. I want to convey my sincere congratulations to them, because I think the way in which they have acted should be a lesson for the other hon. members who participated in the debate, especially hon. members of the Official Opposition.

I am grateful for the attitude of other hon. members who opposed this Bill. The attitude of the NRP was that of a responsible opposition. I believe we should be grateful that the Opposition is divided into three groups, because time and again, the more responsible conduct of the other two parties exposes the preposterous and sometimes silly behaviour of the PFP. In my opinion they play a worthwhile part in this respect.

In the light especially of the speech that was made this afternoon by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, I want to say immediately that this debate showed, in spite of the preposterous conduct of one group, that many hon. members were concerned about the broad scope of the clause defining a tour guide. For that reason I am prepared to consider amendments to this clause. I have also asked my department to consider a possible amendment which will eliminate this anxiety, because I do not want to create the impression, a wrong impression, that we want more powers than we need.

[Inaudible.]

There is always a danger that this matter might be misunderstood. There is, however, a greater danger and that is that this clause might be exploited deliberately and might be held up to the world as something wicked. This could give rise to the misconception that this does not only come from a wicked Government, but is also something which represents the wickedness of South Africa. I shall demonstrate that to hon. members in a little while.

Before I do that, I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Green Point. This young man talks well and it is a pleasure to listen to him, but he says things he would not have said had he done his homework. I now want to make him an offer, because I should like to see him doing his best. He can do better. Before he speaks on tourism again—I believe that he plays an important role in the tourist group of his party—the doors of my department’s offices in the H. F. Verwoerd Building are open to him. He may approach our parliamentary official or anyone else, and this person will give him the facts with pleasure. That goes for all the hon. members, but I want to appeal to him especially to make use of this offer. We can argue about principles and interpretations, but we should be sure that we know the facts in order to have a meaningful debate. He complained, for example, about the fact that there is no provision for syllabuses in this legislation. However, does such a thing exist? Has anyone ever seen an Act with syllabuses? We introduce legislation to establish universities and professional organizations and we specify the norms, but syllabuses are not included in an Act. The machinery is created to draw up syllabuses.

Did he use those words?

The very words! He also asked why tour guides are not being trained, but he did not take the trouble to find out that they can indeed be trained. One-year courses with syllabuses for tourist guides have been offered at two of our technical colleges, in Johannesburg as well as in Pretoria. If only he had made a ’phone call to my office, I would gladly have drawn his attention to that fact. Now he pretends that we are merely groping in the dark and that we do not know what we are talking about.

He is under the wrong influence!

He also asked why there were no arrangements for training. Such arrangements do exist. He would have been able to find out that the trouble is that these courses are not being supported adequately by tour guides and that the course that was offered in Johannesburg has already been stopped as a result of a lack of support, because it is not compulsory.

Are you now going to force them to attend this course?

Of course! I shall tell the hon. member why.

†Let me now deal with the vociferous hon. member for Groote Schuur. He has told us that he is an expert on tourism. I complained that he did not know enough about the subject. He did not actually call himself an expert, but he told us he was fully qualified to make the type of speech he made because he had travelled many times on buses on which there were tour guides. Now he is an expert on tourism. He is a lawyer. I have known many laymen who went to the courts to listen to the proceedings and not one of them thereafter claimed that he was a qualified lawyer or judge. [Interjections.] That is the value of his arguments. I want to spend a little more time on his speech because in my experience I can only call it an absolute tirade. It was the worst example of a polemic extravaganza that I have ever heard or seen.

Now just answer the question.

I shall answer the hon. member’s question. I have never known such extravagance, such hyperbolic exaggerations as we had from this hon. member. It was all indicative of a sarcastic and scornful attitude to South Africa and to the people of this country. Throughout his speech there was one theme which predominated, namely that t<u>hi</u>s Bill was really intended to muzzle people and that the real motive behind this Bill was to end the practice which he believed we believed existed, i.e. the making of anti-South African utterances by tour guides.

You said so yourself.

That may be one of the motives in order to protect the image of South Africa. But the hon. member made it perfectly clear through his exaggerated attitude that to him that was all that was in the Bill. I have his Hansard here and I can quote how he over-emphasized, but I do not want to do that because he is not disputing my conclusion. There is so much more to the Bill. The Bill is not there to control tour guides; it is not there to muzzle tour guides. It is there to protect tour guides against incompetent people who would denigrate the good reputation of their calling. What is more important, the Bill is aimed at protecting the travelling public, the tourist public, who are entitled to proper and good services from the people who lead them through a country, from people who explain the country to them and who have to know the history of the country and who also have to know something about the people of the country. They also have to master technical matters like assisting tourists with their air tickets, their luggage, their hotel accommodation, their exchange problems, etc. One cannot simply pick up anybody from the street, put him in a bus full of tourists and say he is a tour guide. He has to be qualified. He has to be of assistance and he must know what he is talking about. That is the object of the Bill, namely to give the quality of service to which anybody—a South African or a non-South African—who spends money as a tourist in South Africa is entitled to.

But my hon. friends ignore that. That does not concern them. All they are interested in is to find spurious arguments to blacken South Africa, to present South Africa to the world as a wicked, dictatorial freedom-hating country. Mr. Speaker, did you hear the hon. member for Orange Grove a few minutes ago? If not, you were fortunate in escaping it. The hon. member for Orange Grove stood up here and solemnly said or, rather, solemnly compared, the contents of this Bill with the practices in Russia and said that Russia was the only other country in the world with such legislation. He was equating South Africa specifically, by means of narrow definition, with Communist Russia, where people are compelled to travel with a State tour guide. He suggested that that was going to be the position in South Africa. Is the hon. member not ashamed of himself? I would like to ask the members of the PFP what South Africa has done to them to make them hate it so. [Interjections.] Let us now come back to the hon. member for Groote Schuur.

Mr. Speaker, will the hon. the Minister tell us what countries in the Western World have similar legislation?

We have looked at 13 countries.

Which 13?

We could have gone on to other, but the answer we were looking for became obvious by then.

Which 13?

We found that only one of the 13 did not have something similar.

Which 13?

Will the hon. member please allow me to answer his question? After all, I showed courtesy to the hon. member by letting him ask a question and I therefore think he owes me a little courtesy too. Let him try. As I said, we looked at 13 countries and in the case of one—and I am going to spend time on this—namely the USA, there is no such organization. In the case of all the others there is an organization similar to what we propose and in many cases more severe than ours.

Do you mean legislation or an association?

I am answering your question.

Do you mean legislation or an association?

I mean legislation.

You said “association”.

I cannot remember having used that expression. The answer to the hon. member’s question therefore is that accept for the USA all the countries we looked at had legislation similar to ours, in some cases more severe than ours. We want tour guides to be registered, for example. In the case of Ceylon, since it was a British colony—since 1906—Israel, which is one of the great tourist countries of the world, Japan and France tour guides not only have to be registered, but also have to be licensed every year. That is a provision which does not occur in our legislation. In Ceylon, Gibraltar, Israel, Japan and in the country which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition holds up as a model to us, Nigeria, as well as in France, tour guides have to renew their licences annually. In Israel and in Jordan tour guides have to be citizens of the countries concerned. All these provisions are more severe than ours. In Ceylon, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Jordan, Nigeria and France there is provision for the cancellation or the suspension of the registration or licence of a tour guide.

That is not the answer to my question!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must be reasonable.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether or not this applies to people who do this type of thing without reward in the countries he mentioned? I think he will find it is not so.

Mr. Speaker, it does apply to such people in some of the countries. I do not have the details here, but we noted that it was the practice in some of those countries. In our Bill provision is made for the right of appeal against any action taken against a tour guide. However, only in three of the 13 countries that we examined does any provision exist for appeal against the cancellation or suspension of registration. In Israel, a very fine democracy, licences have to be renewed annually and are not renewed unless the guide has attended, during the preceding year, a refresher course or a more advanced course of which he is notified by the official in charge of tour guides so that he can attend it. In all cases the controlling officer is a civil servant.

In the case of Nigeria, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s favourite democracy in Africa, tour guides are controlled by the police. In all cases they have to carry badges, something to which some of the hon. members opposite object. In the majority of the cases applicants who want to become tour guides have to appear before a registrar, or someone equivalent to a registrar, for an examination, because they want to be assured, as we want to be assured, that those who want to become tour guides are in all respects fit to be ambassadors, which they in fact are, of the good name and the fine image of their country. They, like we, want to be satisfied that the applicants are of good appearance, that they do not have physical disabilities which will make it impossible for them to carry out their duties properly, that their general conduct is satisfactory and that their manner of speech is satisfactory, because, after all, they are the persons who make lasting impressions upon visitors. I think that answers the question put to me by the hon. member for Groote Schuur.

I now want to come back to his speech. Mr. Speaker, I want you to take note of his arguments. He argued that with the Bill I have before Parliament I was revealing the true nature of the Government of South Africa. That is what he suggested. He then went on to say what conclusions he drew from this Bill. He said the Government could stop public meetings. According to him people who would visit a university and tell others about that particular university’s advantages or disadvantages could be subject to a R500 fine. He said that the Government could stop all newspapers, could close all schools and universities, could stop interschool debates, could punish pilots who told air passengers something about the country they were passing over, that taxi-drivers were in peril, that his own wife—who, according to him, seems to be a charming chatterbox— could be put into gaol because she spoke to him about the beauty of their surroundings. Then the hon. member for Orange Grove regarded this legislation as comparable only with that of Soviet Russia.

To cap it all and to bring a beautiful finality to his argument, the hon. member for Groote Schuur said that this system could only be operated if one were to institute a reign of terror over the tour guides. I ask any objective hon. member of the House whether that was a fair argument in the light of the list that I have just read out. Is such an argument worthy of a man who is as trained in polemics as the hon. member for Groote Schuur is? There is technique in this regard and he is not the only one who applies that technique. Before I came to these benches I debated at the Students’ Law Society of the University of the Witwatersrand against a professor from another university who had written a book on the Rule of Law. The topic debated concerned the Rule of Law. The professor argued that in terms of the Terrorism Act, if a waiter in a restaurant carried a tray of food slipped and dropped the food on the floor so that it became unfit for human consumption, he could be arrested and punished. [Interjections.] Of course that is not true.

But why are you then referring to it?

I am merely telling the hon. member what a professor who had written a book on the Rule of Law said. When I challenged that argument, he read a provision in the Terrorism Act in terms of which it was a punishable offence for any person to interrupt the normal flow of food to the population of South Africa! This is the very same technique which the hon. member for Groote Schuur follows. If one were mad, one could have believed that such things could happen in South Africa. The hon. member, however, is not mad. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I repeat: The hon. member for Groote Schuur is not mad. Why then does he advance such arguments? He can only have one motive and that is to create the impression that we South Africans are the world’s worst, that we cannot be trusted with democracy and that the rights of people are not safe under a NP Government in South Africa He wants to create the impression that the NP Government is capable of the most gross and the most horrible excesses in suppressing the liberties of the people. [Interjections.] The hon. members over there agree again and again. I want it on record that we have a party over there whose Chief Whip hates South Africa to such an extent that he is willing to believe and to propagate these preposterous suppositions about South Africa and is willing to ask people to believe such suppositions.

The other argument which the hon. member advanced was that it would cost a lot of money to have a scheme like this. Again I want to ask him whether he is not prepared to spend money for the sake of presenting the correct image of South Africa, with all its faults. Is he not prepared to have the Department of Tourism spend money to see that tourists to South Africa get the proper information? Is he not willing to spend money in order to protect the interests of the tourist guides who have formed themselves an organization?

He does not answer.

Yes, he does not answer, because he did not know what he was talking about. He seemed to suggest that there was no basis for this Bill. Did I not give him enough examples of what has happened and has caused us to introduce the Bill? I am not here to tell stories about the tourist industry. I could do so, however. I could remind hon. members of the television programme to which I have referred. The programme was broadcast in October 1975 and in it was a scene of an untrained tourist guide, a middle-aged lady. She was a very fine lady, but do you know what she was telling tourists from overseas, not about the Government, but about the Black people of South Africa? She told them that they ate their own children, that they were cannibals.

Do you think the tourists believed that?

No, but the tourists thought: My God, what sort of country is this that can allow a woman like that to be a tourist guide? That was what they thought But the hon. member does not care. Let South Africa suffer—what does it matter? We have had complaints about tour guides who were slovenly in their dress and spread offensive body odours throughout the bus. We have had complaints about tour guides who were drunk on duty, slept throughout the journey and would not answer questions. Are hon. members happy to have that situation continue? Are they happy that there should be no manner of controlling or restraining these people?

Let the tourists go to another agency.

Order! The hon. member has made enough interjections. He may reply, if he wants to, in the Third Reading debate.

Hon. members must forgive me, but I am not being unreasonable if I keep repeating that that hon. gentleman is talking about things he knows sweet blow-all. He says that if a tourist in South Africa has an experience such as the one broadcast on television, he can go to another agency. But that tourist has signed a contract overseas before he landed here. He is therefore not free to jump from one agency to another without severe financial loss, and that is what I want to protect him against. I want to give him the assurance that if he comes to South Africa he will be decently treated and will be guided by responsible people, knowledgeable people who know what they are talking about.

If you stop being a Cabinet Minister you can start a school of dramatic art!

It has been suggested that the Bill should go to a Select Committee, I take it after the Second Reading. Normally I would quickly agree to that, but let us look at the position as far as the Bill is concerned. The real point of difference here relates to only one clause. I have indicated that I am willing to consider, before and during the Committee Stage, an amendment that will make hon. members feel happier about the situation. So, although for certain reasons I would be in favour of having Bills referred to Select Committees, this is not the proper time to ask the staff of Parliament to set the whole procedure in motion to appoint a chairman and to have hon. members give up their valuable time to discuss just one clause in a Bill when it is possible for responsible men and women to reach agreement, as I hope we shall, before the Committee Stage. I therefore regret that I cannot accede to that request.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would mind answering my question, a question of principle, about the S.A. Railways?

Yes, that was a very good point and I am glad the hon. member has reminded me.

What about my references to clauses 12 and 13?

Those are Committee Stage issues and I shall deal with them during the Committee Stage. To answer the other part of the hon. member’s question more fully, let me say that we have an assurance from the S.A. Railways that they will cooperate fully in the implementation of the Bill. They also want to work with us in drafting the regulations that will control the position of tour guides. The hon. member can therefore rest assured that the S.A. Railways will play ball in every respect as far as the Bill is concerned. Their motives are the same as ours. They also want to give the very best service to the tourists they conduct through South Africa.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided.

As fewer than 15 members (viz. Messrs. B. R. Bamford, J. D. du P. Basson, Dr. A. L. Boraine, Messrs. D. J. Dalling, I. F. A. de Villiers, C. W. Eglin, R. J. Lorimer, J. F. Marais, P. A. Myburgh, H. H. Schwarz, S. S. van der Merwe, H. E. J. van Rensburg and A. B. Widman) appeared on one side,

Question declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The insertion of a new section 26A in the Police Act envisages control being exercised over the wearing or possession of camouflage dress by a person who is not a member of the S. A. Police, the Defence Force, Prison Service or Railway Police who uses such camouflage dress in the exercise of his duties.

The S.A. Police has been using camouflage uniforms for several years in combating terrorism, on border patrols, in the suppression of riots, the destruction of dagga plantations and other similar acts. The dress is very suitable for this type of service and is particularly effective. Unfortunately, similar dress, although not with identical shades of colour or patterns, but which shows a great similarity to the camouflage uniforms of the Police, is generally available on the market It is only logical that the wearing of such dress by unauthorized persons can cause not only confusion and misunderstanding, but may even complicate the task of the police.

An appeal not to make camouflage dress available to the public has not had the desired effect.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. the Minister and I find his explanation of the Bill most satisfactory. Section 26 of the Act deals with the unauthorized wearing of police uniforms, clothes which resemble police uniforms or badges, which are so similar as to be deceptive. Consequently, the motivation for this Bill is clear. The Bill represents a further step aimed at avoiding deception and confusion and of people passing themselves off as policemen. If I may be humorous, it might even be called a move to protect the identity of the policeman. It is also intended for the protection of the public, enabling them to identify a policeman immediately. All in all, the proposal, as put by the hon. the Minister, seems to be both in the interests of the Police and of the public. Therefore I think it should be supported.

One word of caution, however, and that relates only to the wording of the Bill. I understand that in this respect an amendment is proposed which, if accepted, will be most helpful. Although it has been stated clearly that the intention of the Bill is to ensure that a uniform of a camouflage nature will not be able to become public property, one can read into the Bill that it relates to any type of textile or cloth. I trust, therefore, that this Bill will be used to designate a very limited and distinctive type of cloth, such as a camouflage type of material, of which the removal from the open market will in no way cause hardship to manufacturers or the public. Having said that, we on these benches will support the Bill in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will support the principle of the Bill. It is perfectly understandable that camouflage uniforms are confusing and that they may be dangerous. We do not have any problems in that regard. However, I have two problems in connection with details of the Bill which I should like to raise at this stage. The first is in connection with the description of a textile or other material. It is a very wide description and if we accept it as it is, it is possible that any textile used in the manufacture of a police uniform, may be prohibited by regulations. This, of course, is not what the Bill envisages. The intention is to prohibit camouflage textiles or material only. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will accept an amendment during the Committee Stage which will describe the textile more closely as a patterned textile. It is our intention to move the insertion of the words “of a pattern” after the word “material”. This will exclude the possibility of, for example, ordinary khaki material and other ordinary textiles being included in the prohibition. If one starts including ordinary textiles, the variety is so great and the steps necessary for defining these materials by regulation so difficult, that the whole object of the legislation will be defeated. I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept the amendment.

As far as the proposed section 26A(3) is concerned, viz. the proposed presumption section, I feel that this provision is very unfair. The police have all the technical knowledge which is at their disposal and, if necessary, the CSIR can determine the nature of a textile or material. Consequently it is easy to prove in court that somebody had a prohibited textile in his possession. However, the accused does not have those resources at his disposal. He cannot provide the necessary proof because he does not have access to the CSIR or the necessary machinery at his disposal. Therefore he will not be able to prove that the material in his possession is not the material referred to in the legislation. However, if we further define “material” by mentioning a type of camouflage material with a pattern on it, it will be very easy to prove that someone has in fact committed an offence, because then the description of the material is much clearer. I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept a second amendment so that the proposed section 26A(3), the presumption section, may be deleted from the legislation. However, this will take place during the Committee Stage. At this stage we in these benches support the principle of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that hon. members of the Opposition support the Bill, as their two speakers have indicated. We all agree that the Bill will be to the advantage of the S.A. Police and our public because a greater degree of certainty will be achieved through it. When anyone is clad in bush wear or camouflage dress, the public can be certain that it is a policeman. If it is a terrorist, we will also know what to do with him. We are pleased that the hon. the Minister brought this Bill to the House.

Hon. members will remember the case in 1976 when certain people arrived at Magaliesberg in camouflage suits. Panic almost prevailed, and requests were addressed from my constituency to the hon. the Minister concerning the matter. Therefore I am very pleased today that he is introducing this legislation to the House. I shall move a small amendment to clause 1 during the Committee Stage. I have already discussed it with the hon. the Minister. At this stage we support the Bill; it is good legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their support of the principle contained in the Bill. The hon. member for Durban Point made two suggestions which, I think, are not unfair. One concerns the pattern which must be printed on the material and the other concerns the proposed subsection (3). I am also of the opinion that the police are able to acquit themselves entirely of the onus of proof and in these circumstances I am prepared to accept the amendments in the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, in view of the co-operative attitude of the hon. Minister, I shall not debate the issue but merely move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 8, after “material” to insert “of a pattern”;
2. (2) on page 5, in lines 1 to 9, to omit subsection (3).

I argued this during the Second Reading debate and will take the matter no further now.

Mr. Chairman, I foresee certain problems with the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point if we merely insert the word “pattern” here. One can see that with this definition the hon. the Minister may experience problems in having it proved in court. In order to make the matter a little clearer, I move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg covers my amendment as well as taking it a little further. Therefore I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. W. V. Raw, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Verwoerdburg.

Amendment moved by Mr. A. J. Vlok agreed to.

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. W. V. Raw agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Administration of Estates Act, 1965, makes provision for simplified liquidation processes in the case of small estates since such estates do not require the same extensive control, with attendant higher costs; nor do they require more time to liquidate. Money values are of decisive importance in determining the procedure that has to be adopted in the liquidation of every estate. In specific cases the Act also allows Masters of the Supreme Court a discretion, during the estate liquidation process, to perform certain acts if the assets are not in excess of certain amounts. These provisions are also aimed at saving time and costs.

The result of the depreciation of money since 1965, when the existing Act was passed, has been that an increasing number of estates with small assets have had to go through the full liquidation process and that the other relevant provisions cannot be utilized to the same extent as before.

It was ascertained from the Reserve Bank that the corresponding value of R100 in 1965 was R225,73 on 30 June 1977. This calculation was based on the consumer price index and indicated a depreciation of just over 125%. In this Bill provision is being made for a depreciation of 150%. This is being done in order to round off the amounts concerned satisfactorily. But the result is that there will also be a small measure of provision for future depreciation in the value of money. The Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa and the Masters of the Supreme Court support the amendments.

The opportunity is also being taken, by means of clause 7, to rectify a faulty reference in the Act.

Mr. Speaker, normally if a person dies intestate, if an executor of a will cannot be traced or if, in fact, there are any difficulties relating to an executor, e.g. if he should cease to act, the Master will then call a meeting of heirs, creditors and interested persons and will take advice as to who should be appointed. The exception to the rule is to be found in estates valued at less than R600. In such cases, in terms of the existing legislation, the Master is empowered to dispense with calling such a meeting and also to dispense with the necessity of appointing a formal executor at all. Instead he may give directions as to how the estate should be wound up and distributed. This system of the Master using his discretion has worked well in the past and has obviated much red tape, and I am not aware of any major complaints that have arisen.

The problem which arises, in these modern times, is that more and more estates of no great substance none the less fall outside the scope of this type of exception, thus bringing into force the necessity of calling meetings, receiving recommendations and going through the whole rigmarole of a formal winding-up procedure, causing all the consequential expense and delays. It must be realized that if an estate has only one asset, say a used motor vehicle with a value of R850, section 18 of the existing legislation would have to be brought into play. By increasing the scope of the exception, more small estates are brought within the ambit of that provision and into the reckoning with the view to an expeditious and inexpensive liquidation and distribution procedure. I think this is to be welcomed by heirs and creditors. It must enjoy the support of all of us.

Having said that, I have really covered the whole principle of this Bill. When one looks at the other clauses, one can see that the Bill’s basic purpose is to bring into the ambit of the simplified procedure applicable to small estates a larger number of estates than presently would qualify. The value of money, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, has eroded significantly in recent years. The present figures mentioned in the Act which is to be amended, are no longer realistic. The suggestions contained in the Bill are, I believe, sensible and we shall therefore support this Bill in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, it is my very pleasant privilege to rise in this House this afternoon to make my first speech. There are also many other privileges attaching to this event. One of them is to congratulate the hon. member for Von Brandis unfortunately in his absence, on the exceptional contribution he made in this House yesterday. There is a special reason for my congratulating him—he is one of my voters. We in Marico were overjoyed when he took on the Von Brandis constituency and achieved so much success there. We in Marico find this encouraging. I think that with the next election, we might also send someone to Bezuidenhout.

It is also a great privilege to be able to listen to debates being conducted by excellent debaters and parliamentarians. We as newcomers foresee, particularly in the epoch in which we now find ourselves—the hon. member for Umlazi also mentioned this yesterday—that we are on the verge of important developments, in the constitutional sphere as well. This is going to afford us as newcomers the opportunity of following these developments closely. That, too, is a privilege.

I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Mr. M. S. F. Grobler, who represented the electoral division of Marico in this House for almost 20 years. He is better known to everyone as Oom Tienie. He is a man of exceptional qualities, a person who is also known to you for his long but always well prepared speeches. However, he is a person who was highly esteemed and revered by his colleagues in the House. I had the opportunity of speaking to several of his colleagues and each and every one of them spoke of Oom Tienie as a zealous, hard-working and excellent representative of his voters.

The Bill which is at present being dealt with, seeks to rectify certain amounts in order to bring them into line with present money values and with the times in which we are living. I think we are all in agreement with those rectifications. I looked for a theme in this legislation on which I could base my maiden speech and it seems to me I have found a small one, and with your permission, Sir, I should like to base my speech on it.

Because the amendment we are now dealing with seeks to make rectifications in regard to amounts which were previously laid down and now have to be set at a more realistic level, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would allow me to suggest, with reference to the Succession Act of 1934, that a rectification also be made in that Act in regard to a certain amount specified there. The Act in question affords protection to surviving spouses in the case of intestacy. The Act allows an amount of R10 000 for his or her protection. I am of the opinion that the amount of R10 000 is entirely inadequate in the times in which we are now living and taking into consideration the present value of the rand. I am also aware that there have been previous pleas in this House for a rectification to be made in this regard. In my opinion such a request is fair and justified and therefore I think that urgent attention should be given to this amount of R10 000 which was laid down as long ago as 1962, i.e. 16 years ago, and that a rectification should be effected in this case as well so that this amount can be considerably increased.

The dilemma in which the surviving spouse—for the most part the wife—finds herself in the case of intestacy may be directly attributed to poor estate planning, the subject on which I should like to express a few thoughts this afternoon. There exists a great need among the public today for more knowledge in regard to estate planning. Consequently I want to put forward a few ideas in regard to meaningful estate planning. Unfortunately scant attention is given to this subject in South African legal textbooks. Nevertheless I want to quote a description by Adv. D. Meyerowitz in which he gives his definition of estate planning. It is this—

Then there is another very well-known planning adviser, Mr. Flip Olivier, who also made a contribution in this regard, and he defined estate planning as follows—

Estate planning is not a matter to which only the man of substance should give attention. It is a matter to which everyone who has an estate, no matter how small, should give attention, and disastrous consequences can be avoided if consistent planning is done. A lack of sound and thorough estate planning frequently results in far more estate duty being paid than is necessary, and it is consequently the rule rather than the exception that people on whose estates a high estate duty is paid, paid too much income tax during their lifetime.

However, the machinery making it possible for people to reduce estate duty and income tax to a minimum, and frequently to eliminate it entirely by means of sound and thorough planning, does exist.

I want to elucidate this statement of mine by means of a single example. In the example I am deliberately using large amounts in order to illustrate it more clearly. Let us take the case of a person whose estate amounts to R700 000. His wife’s estate amounts to R300 000. The married couple have two children and the surviving spouse is designated as the only heir in terms of the will. The husband dies first. His estate of R700 000 is liquidated and after the statutorily allowable rebates for estate duty have been deducted, there is a taxable estate of R600 000, on which the estate duty amounts to R180 750. A few years later the wife also dies. Now her estate consists of all her own assets, i.e. R300 000 plus those she inherited from her husband, as well as the interim accrual. On this considerable estate—also after rebates have been taken into consideration—an estate duty of R294 500 is now payable. Therefore, within a period of two years, estate duty to the value of approximately R475 000 has been paid on these two joint estates. If there had been better estate planning and if the statutorily allowable resources had been utilized, the picture as far as estate duty is concerned, could have been an entirely different one. If the generally known usufruct in favour of the surviving spouse had been utilized and the children had been the heirs, the estate duty on the two joint estates could have been reduced to R232 500 instead of the R475 500 now payable. Another resource could have improved the situation even further. If the two estates had been combined, with the children as the heirs and a usufruct reserved in favour of the surviving spouse, the total amount of estate duty payable on the two estates would have been limited to the amount of R192 300 instead of R475 500.

As far as income tax is concerned, too, great savings can be effected by means of careful estate planning. The utilization of trusts, whether established while living or by way of a will, can also entail tremendous savings on income tax.

I do not want to burden this House with other examples; suffice it to say that faulty or poor estate planning has many other detrimental consequences as well. I want to dwell on some of these. Many precious man-hours are lost in Masters’ offices throughout our country because there are scores of unsettled estates. Sometimes the staff have to struggle for days, months and years with estates because there was no proper planning beforehand or in the drawing up of the will. Today there are a multitude of laws and regulations which have to be taken into consideration. An example is the Subdivision of Agricultural Land Act. All these laws and regulations make it essential for everyone to plan his estate affairs carefully.

Another fact is that there are sometimes thousands—I would almost say millions—of rands tied up in banks, guardian’s funds and insurance companies simply because the estates cannot be settled. Poor estate planning and sometimes impossible wills are the reason for this. Many surviving spouses and children have found themselves in dire financial straits as the result of poor or no estate planning. Volumes can be written about the frustrations and the heartaches which wives have had to endure because there was no will.

Consequently I should like to make an appeal to the women of South Africa to play a more important and more active role and to take far more interest in the planning of her and her husband’s estates. Women today make an equally valuable contribution to the building up of an appreciable and sound estate, and it is no more than right that they should no longer be docile bystanders when it comes to the drawing up of wills and the planning of estates. It is indeed necessary that the wife should make a meaningful contribution to the planning of her and her husband’s estate.

In conclusion I should also like to make an appeal to educational bodies—universities and even schools—to the legal profession, the accountancy profession, the banks, the insurance houses and the large variety of boards of executors to make it their task, by means of courses, symposiums and instruction to make all South Africans aware of the value which meaningful estate planning has for our entire country. They should not merely train staff in the techniques of sound estate planning, they should also in fact help to make the general public well aware of this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Marico very sincerely on his maiden speech. It seems as though he presented his own thoughts to us. I hope he will always do the same in future.

†I also think, from what he said, that he obviously has a very good knowledge of the subject. Perhaps I could recommend him to hon. members on the other side as an executor. While I wish to associate myself fully with his call upon the women of South Africa to help plan the future and to help plan their husbands’ estates, etc., I am not entirely sure how happy this will make certain husbands.

I now want to come to the subject of the Bill. We on these benches do not want to waste the time of the House, so I simply wish to indicate that we fully endorse this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is also a very great privilege for me to be able to address this hon. House for the first time. I want to begin by calling to mind the services of my predecessor, Mr. George Botha. Mr. Botha began his public career in 1959 in the Transvaal Provincial Council, and in 1970 he was elected to this hon. House. During his period of service as member of this hon. House he rendered excellent services in responsible capacities in this House and in his constituency. For that he deserves the sincere gratitude of everyone. Fortunately it has so happened that Mr. Botha has since been elected member of the Other Place, and his talents have therefore not been lost to Parliament. I want to wish him every success and prosperity with his continuation of his parliamentary career in the Other Place.

†The House has before it a Bill to amend the Administration of Estates Act, 1965. Administration of estates is a subject that touches the lives of most of us at some time or other, be it as beneficiaries or as creditors. Nothing is more uncertain than life and nothing more certain than death. Death, indeed, comes to us all. Everyone who departs this vale of tears leaves behind him not only the memory of his existence, but also the more tangible fruits of a lifetime of toil—an estate which is sometimes very substantial, sometimes merely nominal and sometimes, tragically, insolvent.

Clauses 1 to 6 of the Bill before us deal mainly with the amendment of procedures to be adopted in the administration of smaller estates and estates where the liabilities are found to exceed the assets. Although the proposed amendments to the main Act are of a technical nature, I submit that they are very necessary. We are therefore glad to have the support of both sides of this House for the proposed amendments.

I intend dealing only with the provisions of clause 1 of the Bill, the clause amending section 18 of the Act. To put the proposed amendments in their proper perspective, it is necessary to outline briefly the procedures normally adopted for the majority of estates. After reporting an estate, application must be made to the Master of the Supreme Court for the issuing of letters of executorship to the person nominated as an executor in the will or, in intestate estates, the Master must publish a notice in the Gazette calling upon all interested parties to attend a meeting for the purpose of recommending to the Master a person for appointment as an executor. The appointed executor testamentary or executor dative then takes custody of the estate. He advertises for creditors to lodge their claims; he opens a banking account and proceeds to liquidate the estate. It is also his duty to draw up an account and lodge it with the Master within a prescribed period for examination and approval. After the account has been found in order by the Master, the executor must advertise that the account is lying open for inspection and, finally, he must pay the creditors in terms of the liquidation account and the heirs and legatees in terms of the distribution account That is the normal procedure in the average estate.

Section 18 of the Act grants to the Master discretionary powers to dispense with certain of the already mentioned procedural requirements in smaller estates. This discretion was given to the Master in order to reduce the expense and time usually involved in larger estates, when dealing with an estate of small value. Section 18(3) provides that if the value of any estate does not exceed R600, the Master may dispense with the formality of convening a meeting of interested parties in the case of someone dying intestate and, furthermore, he may also dispense with the appointment of an executor. The section allows the Master instead to give directions as to the manner in which such un estate shall be liquidated and distributed. The practice is to grant to some person, consented to by the beneficiaries, the authority to liquidate and distribute the estate consistent with the will, or the law of intestate succession if there is no will. No letters of executorship are issued. In these cases the Master usually does not require security from such authorized person. He dispenses with advertising for creditors and advertising that the account is lying open for inspection as is necessary in other estates. Where the surviving spouse is the sole heir and such authorized person, the Master usually will not even require an account to be filed provided such person undertakes to be responsible for payment of the debts of the estate.

*It is immediately clear from this what benefits section 18(3) constitutes for all the interested parties in smaller estates. Not only does it present the beneficiaries with a rapid, easy and inexpensive method of disposing of such an estate, but I believe that it simultaneously alleviates the burdensome task of the staff at the various Master’s offices.

The Bill before us seeks to achieve two things with the increase of the said value from R600 to R1 500. Firstly, it is a rectification of the value of R600 which was set as a limit in 1965, as against today’s money values. Without this rectification the number of estates which can be liquidated in this manner will become fewer and fewer as the value of money depreciates, and that is not in the public interest. Secondly, I think the limit is being set at a slightly higher level in order to include an even larger number of smaller estates in the provisions of section 18(3). We accept that experience has shown that this concession worked well in the past, and can be extended.

Section 18(4) deals with the appointment of an executor dative in cases where a person died intestate or omitted to nominate an executor in his will, where a nominated or appointed executor dies or cannot discharge his obligations for other reasons, and in a few other cases as well. The provisions of this section establish only one procedure, viz. the normal necessity for the Master to convene a meeting of interested parties for the purpose of electing an executive to be appointed by <u>him</u>. This subsection provides that, if the value of an estate does not exceed R2 000, the Master may appoint as executor a person whom he deems fit and may grant to him letters of executorship without convening such a meeting of interested parties. In practice the Master will, in exercising the discretion bestowed upon him by this subsection, appoint the surviving spouse, or a person nominated by such a person, or an heir or his nominee, or failing such persons, a creditor or his nominee.

The Bill we have before us seeks to increase the value of R2 000, which is the limit at present, to R5 000. The motivation for this amendment is obviously the same as that put forward in respect of the amendment of section 18(3) to which I have just referred. For the same reasons the supposed legislation and statutory amendment should be welcomed and supported.

In these times in which the streamlining of procedures, the elimination of unnecessary red tape and the saving of precious time and money are being emphasized, measures such as these can make a useful contribution. Members will deduce from the provisions of the Bill that every time those amounts of money are mentioned in the clauses of the Bill, those amounts refer to the value of an estate. I am grateful to the hon. member of Marico for saying that he had been seeking a theme on which to base his speech. Because you did not call him to order, Mr. Speaker, I trust that I shall also be allowed to find a theme here in order to bring the following ideas to the attention of hon. members. I should like to make a few general remarks on the determination of the value of various kinds of assets, but more specifically I should like to leave in your midst a few ideas with regard to the determination of the assets of an estate.

The Administration of Estates Act provides that when an executor draws up his estate accounts, he should include in those accounts, at their valuations, those assets which need not be realized. When the estate is not liable to estate duty and the distribution of the assets among the beneficiaries has not been made dependent on the value of a specific estate asset, the Master usually exercises his discretion and allows, instead of a valuation by an assessor appointed by the Minister of Justice and known in common parlance as a sworn appraiser, the valuation of a municipality or a divisional council to be submitted and, in the case of movable goods, even a valuation by two impartial persons. However, as soon as it is clear that the estate will in fact be liable to the payment of estate duty or when the distribution of the assets among the beneficiaries has in fact been made dependent upon the value of a specific estate asset, the Master and the Secretary for Internal Revenue insist on the so-called sworn appraisal, particularly where immovable property is involved. In this respect the appraiser or valuer frequently finds himself caught between two fires. On the one hand there is the fiscus that wants its pound of flesh, and on the other there are the heirs who are interested in as low a valuation as possible. The State as well as the heir therefore have a material interest in the value at which the estate assets are going to be assessed. When the division of the assets among the beneficiaries is made dependent on the value of a specific estate asset, the valuation of such estate assets is also of material importance, but in particular then for the beneficiaries concerned.

An example of such a situation is the following kind of testamentary provision, which occurs fairly generally. A testator with a son and a daughter bequeaths his farm to the son on condition that the son pays over to the daughter a cash sum equal to the value of the farm on the date of the testator’s death. With such a provision in a will it follows that it is in the interests of the son that the value set on the farm be as low as possible, for then he can pay his sister less. On the other hand it is in the daughter’s interests that the value set on the farm is as high as possible, for then she can collect more from her brother. This situation illustrates immediately the responsibilities of the valuer or the appraiser. In theory there is no problem, for if the valuer has the necessary knowledge, experience and integrity, he will in all cases make a valuation which does justice to all interested parties and which ought to satisfy everyone. In practice this is not the case, however, and everyone involved in the administration of estates knows that valuations are frequently questioned. It happens, for example, that the Secretary for Internal Revenue rejects a valuation or that the son or daughter, in the aforesaid example, is dissatisfied with the valuation of their father’s farm. In passing, I just want to mention that there are many other areas in which the valuation of property leads to a conflict of interests. The principal ones are, inter alia, the alienation of land for public purposes, municipal and divisional council valuations, the zoning of urban properties under town planning schemes, in the private sector where money lenders grant bonds on properties, and many others. People who have practical experience of these matters are frequently amazed at the almost inexplicable differences in valuations for the same asset made at the same time by two different valuers. These problems have various causes. One of these is that no uniformity exists. We have no uniformity concerning the norms applied with a valuation, we have no uniformity concerning the methods used in valuations, and we also have too many kinds of valuers. So, for example, one finds people who call themselves valuers, there are appraisers, Land Bank valuers, agricultural credit valuers, urban valuers, divisional council valuers, etc. It is a fact that each of these groups of valuers has a unique approach and frequently lays down differing criteria when they have to value property. A further problem is that these people frequently are compelled by statutory provisions to lay down such differing criteria. I do not think that this is conductive to the creation of confidence in the private sector, among Government bodies or in the private citizen. What we need, in order to render a good service to the country in this regard, is a strong and properly trained valuer’s profession.

The S.A. Institute for Valuers has been in existence for many years. This is a body which has done and is still doing wonderful work to enhance the standards of valuations by providing training and by adopting many other methods. But there are still many deficiencies, and a great deal of work still has to be done in this regard. That is why it is extremely gratifying that a commission of inquiry into the valuer’s profession has already been appointed. The commission has wide terms of reference and we look forward with great expectations to the report of the inquiry, for it is hoped that this will bring us closer to the ideal of a valuer’s profession with the necessary status, of the necessary calibre and with the necessary scientific training. This profession will not only be of service to the State in all its functions and ramifications, but in particular to the general public as well.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I should like to express my gratitude to the Opposition for the fact that they accepted the principles contained in this Bill.

Secondly, I should like to convey my sincere congratulations to the hon. members for Marico and Ermelo on their speeches. The hon. member for Marico mentioned that his predecessor was known for his long speeches. I hope the hon. member for Marico will be known for his short speeches. I also noticed that the hon. member for Marico is somebody with a very sure political instinct, and that is probably why he was advocating the rights of women in his maiden speech. I am sure it will bring him very good dividends. I think all of us in this House were impressed by the thorough study which both the hon. member for Ermelo and the hon. member for Marico made of their respective subjects and also by their pleasant delivery. It is my opinion that the two hon. members are going to do very good work and I wish them all everything of the best for their term of office.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will probably have noticed in studying this Bill, the proposed amendments are primarily of a practical nature and require little explanation. There are, however, a few aspects which I should like to explain briefly for the sake of clarity.

In clause 1 of the Bill, a definition of the expression “machine gun” has been inserted. The principal Act contains no definition of this expression, and the explanation in authoritative dictionaries is of such a nature that it gives rise to uncertainty in view of the modern automatic fire-arms which are indeed nothing but machine guns. These out-of-date explanations in dictionaries were especially apparent in the case of the State v. Makunga and Others, 1977 (1) S.A. 685 A, in which the Appeal Court felt itself bound to attach a particularly limited interpretation to the expression “machine gun”, because there was no definition in the Act itself.

It may interest hon. members to learn that many of the semi-automatic fire-arms which are available today can, with a limited technical knowledge, be converted into fully automatic machine guns or machine pistols by means of minor modifications. The proposed amendment is therefore regarded as essential in order that persons in unlawful possession of such fire-arms may be brought to book.

Clauses 2 and 3 seek to limit to a reasonable period in which a person may appeal to the Minister against a refusal of a fire-arm licence by the commissioner or the imposition by the commissioner of certain conditions with regard to dealer’s licences. It often happens in the event of such a refusal or the imposition of certain conditions, that the person thus affected delays for months and sometimes even for a year before he appeals. That is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, because a person’s position can change a great deal in the course of such a long period.

The amendment in clause 4 will entail that a person who takes a licensed fire-arm out of the country for a lawful purpose, need not obtain an import permit to bring that same fire-arm back with him, nor for ammunition which he brings in with him for that fire-arm.

The proposed amendment in clause 5 is aimed at simplifying the records which a licensed dealer has to keep in connection with the sale of ammunition.

Clause 6 inserts the old provision about the unlawful pointing of a fire-arm (contained in section 114 of the General Law Amendment Act, Act 46 of 1935) in the principal Act, because it is more appropriate in the context of this Act.

It is further intended with clause 7 to extend the powers of the Minister to make regulations, to the charging and recharging of ammunition. These days the charging and recharging of ammunition has assumed such vast proportions that it has become necessary to exercise some control over it.

Mr. Speaker, I shall content myself with these few explanatory remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill should not delay the House very long. We are in agreement with its provisions and find no serious fault with them. We are in full agreement with bringing into the ambit of the Act the definition of a machine-gun, particularly in the light of recent developments in the possible automation of semi-automatic fire-arms.

The second aspect, namely the regularization of the time in which an appeal might be lodged against a refusal to grant a licence, is one which brings greater clarity. Clauses 4 and 5 regularizes the supply, importation and acquisition of arms or ammunition by licence-holders and we have no objection to these provisions.

The inclusion by means of clause 6 of the offence of pointing a fire-arm in this Act is more propitious and we support it I am interested in the very slight changing in the wording of the clause. Section 114 of the General Law Amendment Act, 1935, which is now deleted, reads—

This wording is amended by clause 6(b) in such a way that the offender is now any person who “ wilfully points any arm, air-rifle or air-revolver at any other person”. The penalties for this offence are contained in the general provisions of the Act. I am in agreement with the change in the wording. I think it makes it slightly harder for any person, particularly a private person not normally authorized to use fire-arms, to justify using them on people.

In recent years there have been a fairly dramatic increase in shooting incidents. The use of a gun as a threat, a joke or as a means to achieve an end, has too often become a very real danger today. Often innocent bystanders, for instance, are injured by the hotheaded and very inexpert use of fire-arms. Like the case is in America, regrettably, the private bearing of arms is for at least one section of the community becoming a way of life. Violence involving fire-arms is on the increase and is becoming, like motor accidents, an everyday event to be read in the newspapers and forgotten almost immediately. The amendment to section 39 of the Act will, of course, not radically change all this, but what I would like to see is a change in the policy in regard to the issue of fire-arm licences. These are presently granted on far too flimsy grounds, for instance on the bare statement that the arm is needed for personal security. These licences are too readily available, and people who have no training or expertise in the use of fire-arms can require licences easily. So, in supporting the Bill, I would nonetheless urge the hon. the Minister and call upon him to look affresh at the statistics relating to incidents, accidents and crimes involving the use of fire-arms, and having done this, to give consideration to making the issue of licences for fire-arms far more selective, and only where a real need exists. Secondly, the hon. the Minister should consider making it a law that applicants should first acquire a certificate of competence to use fire-arms—in other words, a certificate of proficiency, before a licence is granted.

Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in supporting the Arms and Ammunition Amendment Bill. For the purposes of my speech I shall confine myself to clause 1. Clause 1 has as its object the insertion of a further definition, namely that of “machine gun”, in the principal Act.

By way of introduction I should like to take up the cudgels for the fire-arm, the rifle. If it had not been the rifle and for the role which it played in the history of our nation, we would probably not have had the Christian White civilization here which we have today. As a means of defence, the gun helped the Boers at Vegkop, where a mere 40 Boers with their rifles were able to defeat 6 000 Matabeles. At Blood River, 464 Boers with their rifles defeated even greater numbers of Zulus.

But it was not only in connection with the establishment of our civilization in this country that the rifle made its contribution; the rifle also made a contribution in enriching the Afrikaans language. Our language is full of expressions and idioms in connection with the rifle. It is for example politically correct to say that the Opposition have prepared all their ammunition and are taking aim at the hon. the Prime Minister with their rifles rested. But I would much rather say that at the polls in Jeppe, the NP fired a deadly salvo at the Opposition. If a candidate does not do well at the ballot-box, it can easily be said that his powder was wet (nat). The hon. member for Umhlatuzana who is sitting in front of me, often fires a good shot at one of the hon. members on the opposite side of the House, and then we say: “Skote Petoors!” The Boer and his rifle are inseparable. Prof. Lategan has written in his book that the Boer and his rifle are as inseparable as a whip and its lash.

A fire-arm is a very dangerous weapon. How dangerous it is, is measured by its firing rate. The firing rate of our muzzle-loaders was limited to one shot every one or two minutes. But when the cartridge was invented, the firing rate rose to approximately 30 shots per minute. The firing rate has gradually increased until today we have a fire-arm on the market which, if one merely pulls the trigger and keeps it depressed, can easily fire approximately 1 000 shots per minute. That is 17 shots per second. As far as I am concerned, this is a very dangerous weapon and ought definitely to be classed as a machine gun.

When an offender was arrested in 1966 in connection with the unlawful possession of a military R1 rifle, the Supreme Court could not define exactly what a machine gun was. The R1 rifle has 20 shots in its magazine and in given circumstances one can fire all the shots within a matter of little more than a second by merely pulling the trigger and keeping it depressed. However, the Supreme Court could not convict the accused and sentence him to a term of imprisonment of 10 years, because the court did not know exactly what a machine gun was. It is for this reason that a precise definition of “machine gun” is now being given in the Bill. I want to suggest that to a large extent, the firing rate determines how dangerous a fire-arm is. If any fire-arm can maintain such a terrific firing speed if one merely pulls the trigger and keeps it depressed, it ought immediately to be classified as a machine gun. I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment Bill. As far as I am concerned, it is spot on.

In terms of existing legislation, two offensive weapons are classified under a category for which heavier sentences may be imposed, viz. a cannon and a machine gun. We now know what a machine gun is, but I would suggest that a cannon should also be very clearly defined. I do not know what would happen if a person were to appear in a Supreme Court for the unlawful possession of, for example, a mortar, a rocket launder or a missile. Perhaps the Supreme Court will then again not know what to do, because there is no definition of these offensive weapons in the principal Act.

I want to conclude with a brief reference to the Van der Merwes in this House. There are about half a dozen of us here. The latest Van der Merwe joke we have been hearing lately consists of one word only, and that is “Green Point”. Thank you.

Order! I trust the hon. member will still become a “big gun”. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the hon. member for Jeppe on his maiden speech. He talked a great deal about the wet powder of the Opposition in Jeppe during the recent election. I just want to tell him one thing: Be careful, old Boer, perhaps the English are coming again. His knowledge of weaponry, however, is of course going to make him a formidable opponent I think he has a sense of humour and I hope that we shall hear much more of it in this House, because humour is certainly not lost on occasions.

I just want to indicate our support for this Bill. I want to commend the hon. the Minister on its introduction.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank hon. members for their support of the Second Reading of this amending Bill. With the hon. member for Umhlanga I should also like to extend my congratulations to the hon. member for Jeppe who made a very interesting and well-considered speech. I shall definitely consider his suggestion that a definition for cannon be found. I do not know who among us are going to possess cannons illegally. I just want to tell the hon. member for Umhlanga that should the English come to Jeppe, we shall not shoot this time, but shall tell them: People, don’t shoot, because it is our own people. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments proposed in this Bill are mainly aimed at the transfer, to the Minister of Police and the Commissioner of the South African Police, of certain powers which in terms of the principal Act are vested in the Minister of Justice and a magistrate.

The reason for this is that the Second-hand Goods Act, 1955, is administered by the police, and it is only practical and desirable that the administration be transferred to the police altogether.

At the same time, the deletion of certain obsolete provisions is proposed, and in clause 4 provision is made for a heavier penalty in accordance with modern circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill amends the Act which deals with the very necessary control over the purchase and sale of second-hand goods. Second-hand goods involve a form of business which is easily open to abuse and over which a measure of control is, I think, both justified and desirable. The amending Bill deals roughly with three aspects. Firstly, there is introduced a simplification of terminology in the definitions, which on the face of it, at first look, is perhaps helpful to the easier understanding of the provisions and to their efficient implementation. I must say, however, that I have a difficulty and a worry concerning one of these new definitions, and I refer in particular to the new definition of a dealer. The old definition said that—

And then it sets out a long list of licences and qualifications and deals in second-hand goods. The amendment apparently clarifies the matter, but states only that—

My worry is that in incorporating an amendment of this sort we shall bring within the ambit of the necessity of granting licences, and all that that involves, people who would not normally trade under a second-hand goods licence at all. I am thinking in terms of charities which deal with jumble sales on a regular basis and who sell second-hand books; even book dealers. I am thinking of people who trade in stamps, philatelists, schoolboys who deal in stamps, and I am thinking of schools which hold regular fundraising events and which sell second-hand goods. The worry I have is that if this is accepted without further thought, there will be brought within the ambit of the Act activities which one does not wish to include. That then is our first worry.

The second aspect of the Bill—to which we take no exception at all—is that the maximum penalty for contravening the Act is raised from R200 to R1 000. This is the first change proposed to this section since the enactment of this law in 1955, which is some 22 years ago, and is easily supported.

Our real difficulty is to be found in the third aspect of the Bill, particularly in clause 3 of the Bill, which relates to the granting of certificates. In effect clause 3 provides in particular for the granting of certificates to persons wishing to trade as second-hand goods dealers and this function is now transferred from the Department of Justice, i.e. the Minister of Justice, and in effect the magistrate concerned, to the police. There may be sound administrative reasons for this and I concede that certain administrative reasons can easily be put forward, but I ask whether it is a sound principle that the question of the licensing of businesses be put in the hands of the police and taken away from the magistrate, who is, after all, a judicial officer. The question of licensing generally in very many spheres, in fact nearly all spheres, is considered to be a quasi-judicial function. When one thinks of liquor licensing, there is a Liquor Licensing Board with a magistrate at the head of it. When one thinks of road transportation there is a specially created Road Transportation Board. Even when one thinks of the ordinary trading licences, it used to be the task of the city councils, particularly in the Transvaal, to issue those licences. It is now the task of a special licensing board which has been created and in most cases a magistrate is the head thereof. It is our feeling that the principle should be that where licences are involved it should be the task of a magistrate to adjudicate upon applications. In this case the investigating officer would also be the adjudicating officer, because if one looks at clause 3, which introduces the new section 4(1), one can see that there is a conflict I shall explain this to hon. members. The proposed new section 4(1) states—

Section 4(2) states—

Certain things may be done. What is going to happen is that the commissioned officer in charge of the police district will receive the application and will also have to lodge with himself a report on the particular matter, and unless this particular matter is clarified I do think a small conflict could arise in this respect. In any event, we are always saying, and I do believe it is true, that there is already a great burden on the S.A. Police in the tasks that they have to perform. I also believe there is no justification for this matter to be transferred to the police. A policeman’s task is that of maintaining and promoting law and order, of investigating misdemeanours and of apprehending a miscreants. I do not believe that a policeman is a judge, or a magistrate or even an adjudicator where vested interests are involved, or where there are issues involved. I do not believe he is trained to do that sort of work. This function should on principle stay where it is. I therefore move as an amendment—

In moving this may I say that my object is not political. It is purely to get the matter before a group of people to consider these points and come up with answers which will do away with the necessity of debating this at great length.

Mr. Speaker, please excuse me for not replying to the previous speaker. As this is my first speech in this House, please allow me to digress for a moment from the amending Bill under discussion. I want to say to you and to this House that it is indeed a great honour and privilege for me to be able to sit in this House and to be able to act as the representative of the constituency of Umhlatuzana, of which the previous representative, the former national leader of the NRP, and his successor, the Natal leader of the NRP, are no longer in this House. In addition it would appear—I do not want to discuss politics—that some of them have vanished from the political scene. However, I leave the matter at that.

To come back to the legislation before this House, there is one matter which strikes me, and that is the question as to what secondhand goods are. I want to pose the question at once. What are second-hand goods? It is very clear that this is where we are experiencing problems. In fact, problems in connection with second-hand goods are being experienced throughout the country. The long title of the amending Bill before us reads—

I want to ask again: What are second-hand goods? We must get a very clear description of second-hand goods. I have consulted various dictionaries of definitions as to the meaning of “second-hand goods”. Their definition amounts to: “from the second hand; not new; not direct from the seller or the manufacturer”.

Now I want to explain at once why I place so much emphasis on the matter of secondhand goods. I refer hon. members to a 1928 court case. In that instance the police experienced the problem that they could not ascertain what in actual fact the position was. At present we are still experiencing the same problem in connection with second-hand goods as in 1928. At the time the judge was requested to formulate a definition of secondhand goods. I want to quote his definition here this afternoon. This is how he put it—

Here he gives us a definition of what secondhand goods are. The hon. the Minister submitted to this House a Bill seeking to effect certain changes with regard to certain matters. As explained by the hon. the Minister, the onus now passes from the magistrate issuing the certificate, to the Minister of Justice. From there it is referred to the Commissioner of Police, who, in turn, may delegate it to certain of his officers. The hon. the Minister pointed out that the whole matter was being administered by the Police. For that reason provision is being made in the Bill for this matter, too, to become the responsibility of the police.

But I want to take it further. As I said initially, this is a matter which has been exercising the minds of our people for years. If someone had obtained a certificate, and was dissatisfied for some reason or other, he could appeal to the Minister. A person can still appeal to the Minister. That same provision remains in the legislation. Therefore it does not create any problem. There is no problem in connection with the increase of fines either. I have to point out, however, that it strikes me that whenever legislation of this nature is before this House, there are always people who try to disparage the police as such—if not the Minister himself. We cannot get away from the fact that the S.A. Police are the people who are responsible for the security of our country. They are the first line of defence. For that reason I feel inclined this afternoon—with your permission, Mr. Speaker—to say a few words about our police, naturally with reference to the legislation before the House.

At present we have 33 000 men in the Police Force. What I find admirable, however,—and I was in the Police Force myself for 16 years—is the fact that the Police Force consists of Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Black people. All are involved. All are used to assist us to ensure the security of this country. The Police Force is divided into three main groups, viz. the uniformed branch, the detective branch and the security branch. What I find interesting is the fact that as from 1 January 1972 women were also taken up into the Police Force. This is something which did not happen before. This brings one to the conclusion that there is no discrimination in the S.A. Police. There is no discrimination between the racial groups nor between the sexes.

It is the objective of the S.A. Police that each population group be served, as far as possible, by policemen from their own ranks. As at 30 June 1975 there were as many as 51 police stations in the country manned by non-Whites. Of that number, 42 were manned by Black people, eight by Coloureds and one by Indians.

Unfortunately my time has virtually expired. But I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to pay tribute to the S.A. Police here today. I want to pay tribute to the Commissioner and to all his subordinates, but I also want to pay tribute to him who is at the head of the police, the hon. the Minister of Police.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP have no problem with this Bill. However, before pursuing that any further, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Umhlatuzana with his maiden speech. The hon. member was previously a member of the Other Place. Nevertheless, he made his maiden speech in this House today from a position, one might say, of seniority. I wish him well with us here in this House. We have noticed his remarks with interest.

Second-hand goods present a problem in that so often a piece of second-hand merchandise is a piece of stolen merchandise. All too often this is the case. If for no other reason, we feel very strongly that the hon. the Minister is quite right in his submission that control should be placed with the police. We have absolutely no argument whatsoever with the increase in penalties. We feel that this is something which is probably long overdue.

We must disagree, however, with the Official Opposition when they call for a Select Committee, because we feel that we have before us here a Bill that is quite simple. It is easy to debate here in this House. There is nothing mysterious about it. There is nothing in it that requires us to have to call for evidence or to call for papers. There is nothing that requires the expense of setting up a Select Committee of this House, and in the time allocated for a Second Reading, we feel, we have all the time in the world to more than adequately debate the merits or otherwise of this measure. We have examined it closely. We have looked at it from all angles and we find no fault with it. We find no fault with the principle and we find no fault with the clauses of the Bill. However, our friends in the so-called effective Opposition apparently do find fault with the Bill and therefore they want to call for a Select Committee. [Interjections.] I wish to advise the House that we in the NRP will most certainly not support that motion of theirs.