Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, a form of rationalization and control of the tour guide profession could have been of tremendous service to the tourist industry in South Africa generally. For this reason we on this side of the House are in agreement with the motivation given by the hon. the Minister for introducing this Bill. We feel that much should be done to increase the level of skills prevailing amongst tour guides and that a code of discipline for tour guides would have been useful. However, as the Bill stands now, it is a measure which represents a considerable degree of over-control. We believe that in forcing tour guides to qualify themselves better for their occupations and in forcing them to maintain higher standards generally, one should be tremendously careful not to nip in the bud any tourist undertaking which is still in that state of development where these levels of professionalism can simply not be realistically enforced.

*Mr. Speaker, we feel that the stricter control envisaged by this legislation could have been tempered if the hon. the Minister had granted himself a little more discretionary power in terms of this Bill. This would in fact have been the effect of one of our amendments. It would have granted the hon. the Minister the discretionary power in some cases of exempting certain duties or certain classes of duties from the requirement that a registered tour guide—someone who will eventually, of course, have to comply with certain qualifications—must be employed for that purpose.

Our second important objection—this still exists at this stage, despite amendments which have been moved—is to the question of the power of suspension of registration, a power which is being granted to the Registrar of Tour Guides by means of this legislation. We on this side of the House have indicated that the misconduct of a tour guide could not give rise to such an urgent situation as to require this almost unprecedented power in order to deal with it effectively. Surely this hon. House and the Department of Tourism cannot claim to have a monopoly of sound judgment. When the misconduct of a tour guide is of such a nature that immediate action is urgently required, it is surely unthinkable that his employer will not take action against him. After all, this is a person who is employed in the normal course of free enterprise to perform a function and to do it in such a way that he will not permanently damage the business of his employer. That is why we believe that gross misconduct of tour guides in general would be properly controlled by their employers. If there had been acceptable provisions in the legislation under discussion concerning the two aspects we object to, and the hon. the Minister had satisfied us that he would not grant this power to the Registrar of Tour Guides by means of this legislation, and would retain for himself the discretionary power to exempt certain parties and situations from the provisions of this legislation, we would probably have been prepared to support the Third Reading of this Bill. As it stands, however, we cannot support it. At this stage we are of the opinion that this legislation will have more of a negative than a positive influence on the tourist industry.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support this legislation today. It deals with a service which is being rendered. The hon. the Minister can testify to the fact that travellers pay for services which are never rendered to them and for experiences which they never undergo. This can only serve to shake their confidence. The furnishing of erroneous information can prejudice the Republic. The Government therefore has a duty to protect the travelling public—both local as well as foreign travellers. That is why I think this is a wonderful Bill. It will put an end to exploitation and misrepresentations.

I am pleased that I am able to continue the discussion of this legislation today. In 1973, in the Other Place, I also pleaded the cause of people who “fly by night”. I saw advertisements stating: “Drink champagne high in the clouds.” The people then become so tipsy that those journeys abroad are never undertaken. [Interjections.] I also submitted in my argument that people who sit in out-of-the-way places and arrange journeys should be called to account. People were supplied with credit cards with which they could ostensibly purchase motor cars and do almost anything under the sun. One could ostensibly travel abroad on them as well, but in the end the supplier of the credit card never discharged his obligations.

This legislation now bestows professional status on tour guides. It affects 638 000 people who come to this country from abroad. It affects a tremendous number of people who are influenced in South Africa and who go from here to recount what kind of country South Africa is and what its people are like. The tourist industry is also a major earner of foreign exchange for us. In 1976 the tourist industry earned R279 million in foreign exchange and South Africa still remains one of the most inexpensive tourist countries in the world.

We have an obligation which we have to discharge towards foreign tourists. From the United Kingdom 123 000 tourists come to South Africa every year, while the annual number of tourists coming to South Africa from Germany is 35 000, from the Netherlands 15 000, from Switzerland 10 000, from the mighty USA 44 000 and from Australia 16 000. I am only mentioning a few figures. I do not want to go into greater detail. The tourist industry has become a status industry for the Republic. Our country has innumerable natural assets. Our climate is also a great attraction. One of these days the Americans will also flee to this country. They say it is now becoming very cold in America, in Europe and in other countries. They will all come to South Africa one day. That is why they are all turning their gaze on us. Here in our country there is a stable monetary unit. There is a common language. There is an infrastructure which includes the hotels and travel services. Here we also find marketing campaigns by the international airlines which place South Africa on the world map. Sir, if I have the time, I shall return to this Bill, because it is an important piece of legislation. As I have said, it bestows professional status on these people.

Sir, I am pleased to be here. I am pleased that you, Sir, welcomed us so cordially and that the Leader of the House spoke so kindly to us. He told us about written rules and unwritten rules. The people around me here presented me with all kinds of rules. They told me that one should take an interest in living things, in the fine things of life. They told me that one should not be interested only in dead things. That is why I am pleased that we are dealing here with people, people who are so interesting.

Mr. Speaker, I went from the red benches in the Johannesburg city council to the red benches in the Other Place, and then I said, as Langenhoven also said: “I have now fallen upwards from the bottom”. But, Sir, surely I cannot fall downwards from the top if I come to this place. Now I shall simply have to say that I fell all the way through Parliament, landed on my own feet, and here I stand. These people around me, Sir, give me such fine appellations. I did not know that I was so worthy. When they introduce me to someone, they say: “This is the Honourable,” and then they mention the name I had in the Other Place. Then they also say “the hon. member for Rosettenville”.

Sometimes, therefore, I do not know where I am. However, I find that interesting. This is an extremely interesting place. It is a place of dignity and a place of great decisions. It is also a place of great figures. I am pleased that I can sit here in the company of the present Prime Minister, and also of the Cabinet and all the other members, including the members of the Opposition. Some of them were with me in the Johannesburg city council, and I know them, Sir. They are people with whom I have come a long way.

I want to refer briefly to one great figure who sat here and who had a tremendous influence on me when I was still a young man. I am referring to the late Oom At Badenhorst of Riversdale. When I was still in the Little Karoo, I acquired my political knowledge as a young boy from Oom At Badenhorst. For example he used to come and fetch me to go riding with him. He then gave me the Hansard. What did I know about Hansard at that time? I used to read people from Hansard. Sometimes we used to ride to Little London. “Little London” was what Ladismith, Cape, was then called. That is how I came to read Hansard, but I did not understand all those words. I never realized that I would also become a co-compiler of Hansard one day. Now I am also being afforded an opportunity to talk for Hansard myself.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about my constituency, Rosettenville. It is one of the most wonderful and most beautiful constituencies one can hope to find. It is one of the oldest suburbs of Johannesburg, for Rosettenville originated from 5 km south of the Johannesburg city hall. People at that time had to ride 15 hours on horseback from Pretoria to get there. In 1887 the town was laid out on the farm Turffontein. Then Louis Rosettenstein, after whom the constituency was named, purchased 14 portions of the proclaimed farms in Turffontein for the vast amount of £29 15s. Od. He named the streets after flowers. The most beautiful names imaginable, for example Violet Street, Lily Street, Petunia Street and Geranium Street are a few of the names he gave to these streets.

In September 1886 the proclamation of the farms Doornfontein, Turffontein, Rantjeslaagte and Langlaagte took place. Do you know, Sir, that they had to give those farms English names as well. “Doomfontein” was then translated and to the English visitors from abroad they called it “The Fountain of Thoms”. Langlaagte they called “Long Shallow Valley”. I find this interesting, and we must bear in mind that all these things have something to do with tourism. Our people should know these stories … [Interjections.]

A problem in this regard is that to this day no one knows how Johannesburg got its name. There was Johannes Christiaan Joubert, there was Johannes Meyer and there was Johan Rissik. To this day no one knows after whom Johannesburg was actually named. This is something which still has to be tracked down.

There is another place, Vogelstruisfontein, one of the mines, which was translated as “Fountain of the Ostriches”. I have never yet seen a fountain like that. All these things are part of Johannesburg’s history. Another interesting fact is that when Leopold Löwenstein, a pharmacist from Germany, came to this country to buy stands, he paid 5s. 6d. for stand No. 1 in Johannesburg. When he wanted to buy the adjoining stand as well, he took down a bottle of medicine from his pharmacy shelf and paid for it with that. Stand No. 384 was bought for 1s.

†That is why I am so pleased that the people of Rosettenville, 80% of whom are English speaking, have elected me as their member of Parliament. In eight years time Johannesburg will be 100 years old and I shall press for the romantic story of the Witwatersrand goldfields and of the great city of Johannesburg, which rose up in our midst, to be told by tour guides via the medium of tourism. Let us honour the pioneers of the Witwatersrand whose faith and tenacity made the miracle of our goldfields possible. The story of that incredible city surely remains one of the greatest epics of human industry. One only has to think of the fact that Crown Mines has produced a record 1,4 million kilograms of gold. From 1966 to 1975, South Africa’s annual gold production averaged 906,4 metric tons, more than three-quarters of the Free World’s output. At the end of 1976, 69 South African gold mines were in production, 36 of them being classified as large mines. On the Witwatersrand every working day 250 000 workers go underground.

Here is a very interesting story. There were two robbers, McQueen and Turpin, who came by coach from Kimberley to Johannesburg during those days. They robbed a bank in Krugersdorp. They tied the manager to his chair, grabbed a large sum and galloped towards the Golden City. The Republican police sergeant passed a man who was sitting on a stoep and said: “In the name of Oom Paul, bring out Atlas!” Atlas was a well-known racehorse. On that animal the robbers were overtaken, were handcuffed and brought back to Krugersdorp, from where they were sent to the goal in Johannesburg. The owner of the horse was presented with a cheque for £100. Maybe it is difficult to believe, but the bank that was robbed was the first branch of Standard Bank which opened in Krugersdorp in those early days.

*There are so many stories I could tell here. My area borders on that of the hon. the Minister who will also rise to speak in a moment. He is a very wonderful Minister. He and the hon. member for Langlaagte and I form a kind of triangle there.

There is Robinson Deep, which has left its mark; the Village Main Reef, etc. I have many figures here, which I shall discuss later. There is also Crown Mines and City Deep. Perhaps I shall come back to them. It depends whether time will allow me to say all these things.

I am now going to discuss the, let us call it, “City of Rosettenville”. Here I am sailing into very troubled and dangerous waters, for I am making my maiden speech here. However, I want to indicate how things have changed there. In 1953, when Mr. Alexander Hepple, as a Labourite, won that seat with a majority of more than 6 000 votes, the Labourites polled 81% of the votes and the NP 17%. This is an interesting piece of history. It will be recorded in the tourist guide book. [Interjections.] It is after all part of our country’s history and we must all learn from these things. The Labour Party, which was represented in this House of Assembly for a period of 48 years, finally disappeared from the political scene and from this House in 1958.

And then, in 1958, Dr. E. L. Fisher became the representative of Rosettenville. I want to pay tribute to him today, because some of the people I visited told me that he was their family doctor. One has respect for this fact. Since he is not in the best of health now, one can only hope that he will recover. He represented the Rosettenville constituency for 20 years and I am pleased that I can also continue to do good work in the constituency. In those days Dr. Fisher polled 70% of the votes as UP member, while Dr. Otto polled 19% for the NP. This gave the UP a majority of almost 5 000 votes. Therefore, when I speak about Johannesburg and Rosettenville now, hon. members will understand when I also pay tribute to Dr. Otto. He is now well into the seventies, but I hope that he will, one of these days, become the first Nationalist mayor of the City of Johannesburg. I want to refer this House to the referendum which was held only the other day in 1960—what are 17 or 18 years in history? In that referendum 8 833 people in the constituency of Rosettenville voted for the monarchy, while only 2 631 voted for the Republic. Since 1970 this constituency has been unopposed. A miracle has been wrought there. I make no secret of the fact: It was a miracle that we, as Nationalists, won this seat with a majority of 12 short of 3 000 votes.

Today I want to refer to the schools in that area. I do not know whether hon. members realize how privileged the children who live in the vicinity of Cape Town are in being able to visit Parliament. It is a privilege and an opportunity which they should avail themselves of. In the constituency of Rosettenville there are 10 English schools as against one Afrikaans-medium primary school of 430 pupils. This is the only Afrikaans school in the constituency. However, there are ten English-medium schools with a total of 5 372 pupils. We have a task to give those children civics training as well—I do not always talk politics. We must teach them, by means of civics, what it is to be a citizen of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have grown tremendously fond of those children. Certain things happened which I did not know about. There was a poster of mine and one day a mother said to me: “You know, Mr. Van Rensburg, your poster hangs next to the Rabbitts in my son’s bedroom.” I did not know who these “Rabbitts” were. That evening I asked my children about it, and they gave me a long explanation, so that I know a little more about it now.

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that when I talk about the Rosettenville constituency, it is a very, very great occasion for me. That is the place where numerous sporting bodies get together. It reminds me of another anecdote which I once heard. In President Kruger’s time a great boxing match was held in the Transvaal. On that occasion someone said to Pres. Kruger: “President, there is a big Englishman in Johannesburg who says he can thrash any man in the Transvaal.” The President’s reply to that was: “Shoot that Englishman.” He then instructed the police not to intervene in that fight.

What one also finds in my constituency is the Rand Stadium where Pierré Fourie and Bob Foster fought one another and also where Kallie Knoetze and Duane Bobick came face to face in the ring. Major boxing and wrestling tournaments are held there. In addition wonderful multinational soccer matches are held there. There is also the Hector Norris Park where teams of cyclists from abroad compete against South African teams. In addition there is the Wembly Stadium and the Turffontein race course. However, we have no time to watch racing now. There is also the Eagle Club. The hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation knows about that. There we saw 24 riders on their mechanical steeds—oh, it was marvellous to see those men with their girl friends there!

I also want to refer to another tourist attraction in my constituency. These things will all appear in that guide-book.

†There is also the Santarama Miniland created by Santa with the assistance of the municipality of Johannesburg who provided the ground, 614 acres in extent—hon. members can convert it themselves into metric measurements. It is on the banks of the Wemmerpan in peaceful surroundings. Most of the models there are of historical value and nearly all of them have been sponsored by commerce and industry. South Africa, both ancient and modern, can be seen in models. To build these models cost R500 000 and the scale of the models is 1:25. There one can see the Big Hole of Kimberley, the Union Buildings, the Taalmonument of Paarl— everything in South Africa is in my constituency, as I shall demonstrate—the Wagendrift Dam in Estcourt, built by the Department of Water Affairs, the Big Tower of Port Elizabeth, the N.G. Kerk in Kroonstad where the Wedding March is played from morning till night.

*I have never seen so many people getting married. At that church the Wedding March is played all the time.

†Other tourist attractions on display in this mini-town are the old Mining House, comer house No. 2; the Howick Falls; the whole of the village of Matjiesfontein; East London Harbour, the South African Navy frigate President Kruger; minesweepers and oil tankers. The statue of Jan van Riebeeck is also to be seen there. The mini-town was opened by the State President and already nearly 1 million people have visited this miniature city and 25 000 schoolchildren come there annually. This is a national tourist attraction. The size of this mini-city compares favourably with other mini-cities like Modurodam in the Hague. This city in miniature gives good publicity and all the profits go to this organization to fight tuberculosis.

*I also want to refer to the James Hall Transport Museum which bears the name of Jimmy Hall who joined us the other day. There one even finds horse-drawn tram-cars. In addition to the old trams, one finds horse-drawn coaches there, and other means of conveyance used by the old pioneer families. In addition I want to mention the illuminated musical fountain which the Department of Water Affairs helped to build at Wemmerpan in 1970 at a cost of R125 000. Of that amount the Johannesburg Municipality contributed R60 000. That fountain is a visible and artistic memento for the inhabitants of the Republic. It is a beautiful sight in wonderful surroundings, which I hope hon. members will also get to see.

This is a great occasion for me, and I do not want to spend any more time speaking to hon. members about all these matters. There are so many tourist attractions to visit. There are so many beautiful things, and in this House there are so many splendid people and fond memories. In conclusion I want to say that I hope I will be able to make a contribution in this House. I hope that I will represent the voters—and particularly the English-speaking voters—with dignity and responsibility. Those people are now good republicans. They are good looking people and are very religious, too. They will also eventually contribute to Rosettenville being placed on the world map.

Do hon. members know what hurt me a little when I came down from the north? Previously I was told that I came from the north to stand in the south. A class line is still drawn between us and our workers. Rosettenville was at that time a Labour seat because the working class lived there, which is primarily the case today still. After that it became a UP seat, and today it is an NP seat. That is why we have to look after the interests of the workers. On election day I was filled with pride to shake the hands of people clad in oil-stained overalls. I told them that they were welcome to vote for the NP. They cast their vote, and did so very well. That is why I am pleased that we have ultimately been able to win Rosettenville for this party, the party in which I believe and the party which I trust and which I shall always support.

Mr. Speaker, our party has always wondered why we lost Rosettenville. We could never understand it. Well, we certainly found out today. The hon. member for Rosettenville is very welcome in this House. We understand that he came from the Other Place.

*He is in the nice place now.

What do you mean?

This is a nice place and judging by the nice jokes which the hon. member made today, he is going to make it even nicer. However, the hon. member does not find himself in a nice party. [Interjections.]

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rosettenville is very welcome here and we wish him all godspeed in this House.

As mentioned yesterday, we are supporting this Bill and we would like to thank the hon. the Minister for the amendments he has brought about. He has also reinforced our view that the S.A. Railways would, in fact, be incorporated in this Bill as well. This Bill now has our wholehearted support. I must admit that we originally felt that this Bill was encroaching on the free enterprise system and for that reason we were opposed to the Bill when we discussed its merits originally. On that basis I think the PFP has a point in that it is an encroachment on the free enterprise system, but on the other hand, when we consider what the industry itself wants, we have to consider which is the better of the two. The free enterprise themselves have opted for the Bill and, I believe, with the amendments which the hon. the Minister has put before the House, the Bill will in fact advance the tourist industry. We support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer immediately to the speech by the new hon. member for Rosettenville. We all enjoyed his speech very much. It is nice to know that a constituency like Rosettenville creates a tradition in that since 1958 it has always represented here by amiable people. The hon. member is very welcome in our midst and we look forward to his future contributions. In my view the hon. member has made one of the best contributions to this debate, because he has proved that if one wants to be a really intelligent tour guide, and if one wants to put across and portray to other people the area for which one is responsible, one cannot be picked up off the street as the hon. member for Green Point suggested yesterday.

I did not say that.

One must then be someone who applies oneself to and acquaints oneself with and is inspired with a love for the subject concerning the part or aspect of South Africa for which one is responsible. I want to thank the hon. member for the model lesson which he has today given the hon. House. I also want to express my appreciation for the standpoint of the National Republic Party … [Interjections.]

The New Republic Party!

I am sorry. I am just predicting a little bit. I have always felt—and I know they felt so with me—that if there is one part of parliamentary work which, more than any other, should not be dragged into party politics, it is tourism, because it is something that affects the interests of everybody. It affects the interests of South Africa and the interests of enterprises represented by all the parties in South Africa. If we can put our heads together and create favourable circumstances for tourism, we shall be doing good work in the interests of South Africa. We have discussed the matter in this spirit and I undertook that the Committee Stage would be conducted in the spirit of a Select Committee. That was indeed how the Committee Stage went, except for the contretemps which we had in connection with the first clause. I am very grateful to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South for having expressed his appreciation for the amendments which I accepted in order to make the Bill an agreed measure as far as possible. I am sorry the PFP dissociated themselves from this attitude yesterday, that they made bitter political speeches in which they belittled and wanted to damage South Africa. I am not worried about that, however, because they are not only isolated here in the House as far as the Bill is concerned; they are also isolated in South Africa, because this measure enjoys the support of every section of the tourist industry in South Africa. This Bill originated from the tourist industry, but they nevertheless dissociate themselves from it. I should very much like to know what is going to happen to them, because they cannot carry on like this.

†It is inevitable that eventually the more reasonable members of the PFP will dissociate themselves from the politically incompetent and politically incontinent and will join up with the NRP to give us a better … [Interjections.] … Official Opposition. I am convinced of it. The hon. member for Houghton will then once again sit almost in her former lonely glory.

*In conclusion I want to express my thanks to all the tourist industry organizations which are involved in the matter or which have an interest therein. They are the Tour Guide Association of South Africa; the S.A. Tourist and Safari Association; The Association of South African Travel Agents, and the Associated Chambers of Commerce. I pay tribute to them for their attitude towards, their support of and their co-operation in connection with the preparation of the measure. I am convinced that in the implementation of the measure, we shall enjoy the same fine co-operation and support from everybody in the interests of the tourist industry and in the interests of South Africa. I am grateful for the particularly good relations and understanding which, especially during the past few years, have been built up and developed between the Department of Tourism and the tourist industry.

I know they will continue to exist and will even be strengthened. We believe in consultation and communication, as this is the best way to learn to appreciate one another’s problems and seek together for solutions. I know that this consultation and communication will continue and in anticipation, I wish to express my thanks to all concerned. It is my intense desire, too, that the PFP should take a good look at themselves and should also try to act more responsibly as far as these matters are concerned.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate on the Bill, the Official Opposition, through the hon. member for Sandton, came forward with the surprising motion that the subject of the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report. It was not only a surprising motion, but also a good example of how an effective and constructive Opposition should not act. The fact that the NRP, through the hon. member for Umhlanga, does not agree with the motion of the Official Opposition, is conclusive proof once again of how far wrong the Official Opposition is in this matter. An Opposition should not always just be negative and destructive, but should also be prepared to be positive and constructive. It was therefore really an ill-conceived motion.

Before I discuss the objections and the motion of the hon. member for Sandton, I briefly want to discuss the objects and the tenor of the Bill to indicate that the Official Opposition’s train of thought is really in conflict with the whole spirit and tenor of the Bill. It is striking that the Second-Hand Goods Act, which was introduced in 1955 and came into operation on 1 January 1956, has during this long period of 22 years only been amended twice, i.e. in 1956 and in 1957, when only minor amendments were effected. The amendment Bill which the hon. Minister has now introduced, is by no means of a drastic nature and is merely directed at making the legislation more streamlined in practice. In spite of the proposed amendments, the original object of the Act still remains, namely to counteract theft by combating the receiving of stolen goods. An effort is being made to bring to book the people who assist thieves by receiving stolen goods. It is a fact that in most cases, large-scale thefts would not take place if there were no people who are willing to receive stolen goods and to sell them as second-hand goods in shops. The many cases of breaking into private residences and business premises are encouraged, stimulated and even encouraged by people who are willing to receive stolen goods and to keep them in so-called second-hand shops and to sell them as second-hand goods. I think of motor vehicle spares for example. Thefts of motor vehicle spares would not take place on the same scale as at present if there were not people who think that there is a ready market for such goods. If there were no market for stolen goods, people would not run the risk of stealing them. The object of the legislation is consequently, without prejudicing the honest second-hand goods dealer in any way, to bring to book and punish the dishonest second-hand goods dealer, the dealer who deliberately receives stolen goods. The innocent, honest dealer therefore has nothing to fear.

For the effective administration of the legislation, it is essential that the department administering the Act should exercise control over the issue of certificates. In practice, it does happen in terms of section 4(2) that the magistrate, after consideration of a report submitted by a police officer, either issues a certificate or does not do so. The magistrate acts mainly on the basis of the report of the police officer who examines the premises, ascertains whether everything is in order, and then submits a report to the magistrate.

The report by the police officer is decisive. If the report is positive, the magistrate will issue a certificate and if it is negative, he will not issue it. This procedure is merely being endorsed by these amendments. What happens in practice, is merely being confirmed now. The way it works in practice and its efficiency in fact repudiate the objections by the hon. member for Sandton that the commissioner or officer should not issue certificates. What is more, no rights are being removed. An applicant still retains his right of appeal as before.

Another objection raised by the hon. member for Sandton, was that in terms of the proposed section 4, a conflict could arise as a result of the fact that the commissioner or an officer authorized by him to consider an application, might be one and the same person, i.e. the officer in charge of the police district, who has to submit the report. From a logical interpretation of law it is clear, however, that the provision in respect of the commissioner is an additional one. The commissioner and the officer in charge of the police district can never be one and the same person. In practice, the applicant will make application on the prescribed form to the officer in charge of the police district where he is resident and/or operating. Thereafter the application is submitted to the commissioner at head office. The commissioner or the officer authorized thereto by him, will consider the application. There is no possibility whatsoever of a conflict.

Another objection raised by the hon. member for Sandton, was that sales for charitable purposes and fund-raisings by schools would be affected by this measure. This same matter was raised in 1955 by the then member for Green Point, Major Pieter van der Byl, and was replied to by the then Minister of Justice. This objection was therefore cleared up all of 23 years ago. Persons of this category do not come under this legislation, because they are not dealers. The old definition of “dealer” and the reference in section 3 of the Licences Consolidation Act, 1925, and section 13 of the Finance Act, 1939 (Act 33 of 1939) was repealed by the Licences Act (Act 44 of 1962). But this does not mean that a dealer in second-hand goods need not have a licence. He still has to apply for a licence to the licencing court of his local authority, as required by the Licences Act. Section 1(3) of the Licences Act provides that it is not necessary for a charitable, religious or educational institution of a public character to take out a licence for the purpose of carrying on any trade or occupation. People who have sales for charitable purposes and schools doing fund-raising, are surely not dealers who carry on business. For that reason, the Second-hand Goods Act cannot be applicable to them. I therefore think that the hon. member’s argument is a little ridiculous.

This legislation is extremely flexible. It is important to note that on the one hand the hon. Minister is empowered, by notice in the Gazette, and by the application of this legislation, to declare any article or material to be goods—in other words, include it under the provisions of this legislation—and can on the other hand again, in terms of section 2, exclude any such class of goods from the operation of this legislation by notice in the Gazette by merely addressing a notice in writing to the parties concerned. Why is the hon. member for Sandton then experiencing or foreseeing problems? I think the hon. member for Sandton has lost sight of this important aspect of the legislation.

For that reason, the motion of the Official Opposition to the effect that the amending Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, is all the more incomprehensible and indefensible. It is obvious that the arguments of the hon. member for Sandton and his party are really contrary to the whole spirit, content and practical effect of the legislation. For this reason I gladly support the amendments proposed by the hon. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to reply to a few of the speakers. I want to start with the hon. member for Sandton. He has objected to the wording of the Bill as it reads now. He says it might be vague. I think since the hon. member last spoke, he has probably reread the Bill. I see he is smiling. I am now quite sure that the hon. member is now satisfied that the Bill has not been wrongly worded and that the initial application is made to the police commissioner of that district and thereafter he refers it to the Commissioner of Police at head office. There, the application for that permit will then be decided upon.

There is still a principle involved.

The position at the present moment is that all that is of importance here, is a police matter. That is all that is, and has always been, of importance in the whole Act. The police are trying to stop a dealer receiving stolen goods. The licences which these people must obtain to do business, they will still have to obtain and they have always had to obtain them. These they obtain from an altogether different authority. They normally get them from the municipality. In other words, this is purely a police matter. As the Act stood, the policemen were concerned about two things: The character, the person, of the dealer, and his shop, whether he would be able to conceal goods in such a manner that the police would not be able to find them. An application for a permit was addressed to the magistrate, and the magistrate simply called in the police and asked them whether they were satisfied with the man’s character and his premises. If they were satisfied, the man got his licence. Why, then, should the magistrate do the administrative work when it is purely a police matter whereby they want to stop thefts? For that reason, the wording has been so amended that a matter that concerns the police is being placed under their jurisdiction.

The hon. member has requested that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The principle to which the hon. members object, is that the function of the magistrate is now being taken over by a policeman. Let me put it bluntly: I have no doubt that the hon. member for Sandton fully agrees with me, but I know what he was up against in his caucus. After all, I know that the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Sea Point will never, never agree with anything the S.A. Police ever do.

Nonsense! I think you are dreaming.

Whether it concerns the issue of a licence or the arrest of a man, when they hear the word “policeman”, that little party is against him. That is why they want to refer the legislation to a Select Committee. That is why there is now such a “delicate principle” for the Opposition. That is the real reason. It must never be said overseas that a minor Bill has been passed in this House whereby the duties of a magistrate are taken over by a policeman. Anything but that! That would contaminate them. That is their problem and therefore I cannot agree. There is absolutely nothing in this Bill which needs to be attended to by a Select Committee.

The hon. member has also said that he is concerned about jumble sales at a school. A jumble sale at a school is not a business transaction. It is a minor and isolated event. The legislation clearly defines what a dealer is. It is someone who does business. It will have to be a person who has a trading licence and in fact makes a living by doing business. It does not apply to persons who want to sell a few second-hand books at a school or at some function. That is not a dealer at all. I do not think the hon. member has really made a valid point in that connection. On the other hand, by means of this Bill I should like to adjust the Act in such a manner that we shall be able to prevent people from dealing in stolen second-hand goods. I am quite prepared—and I now put it to the hon. member for Sandton—that after this Bill has been accepted by this House and by the Other Place, I shall again look at it to ascertain whether anything can still be added to improve the matter further. But then the hon. member must support me. It will mean that I am going to strengthen the hand of the police—not weaken them, but strengthen them. Then I should like to see whether the hon. member for Sandton will get past the hon. member for Houghton if he wants to support me. I am waiting for that day. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has given an explanation of the definition of second-hand goods. He has made a very interesting speech here. He was formerly in the Other Place and I have heard that he made interesting speeches there, too. I want to thank him for his contribution and I want to express the hope that the hon. member will have a very pleasant time here in the House. I wish him all of the best.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein East has also delivered a well-founded speech and has pointed out that it is unnecessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I fully agree with him and therefore have pleasure in asking that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the light of the recently announced increase in the salaries of people employed by the State an amendment to the Judges’ Remuneration and Pensions Act, 1975, is also necessary. In this Bill provision is being made for an increase of 12,25% in the salary of judges as from 1 January 1978.

Mr. Speaker, I have learned recently that judges are also human and that they feel the effects of inflation just as any other normal citizen does. I believe that judges have not received any salary adjustment since 1975 and that the increase which is envisaged in the Bill amounts to approximately 12% of their salaries. When one bears in mind that judges’ salaries are not according to a salary scale, but are fixed amounts and non-adjustable, we feel that this is a reasonable increase.

In supporting the Bill I feel that we should realize that although the appointment to the Bench of a barrister, after a long career, can be seen as a major prestige appointment and that a man has thereby reached the pinnacle of his legal career, it also means, in most cases, a sharp drop in income and in earning capacity of the person concerned. I believe also that an appointment to the Bench brings with it no less onerous duties, no less exacting decisions, as long hours, and perhaps even more responsibility than that borne by senior counsel. I think we are fortunate, Sir, that despite the financial implications, senior counsel of merit continue to accept appointments to the Bench and thus ensure the perpetuation of a judiciary of integrity and high quality. We therefore support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the nervousness I regard it as a privilege to address this House for the first time as the new member for the constituency of East London City, and to do so in support of the Judges’ Remuneration and Pensions Amendment Bill. This Bill proposes an adjustment of about 12% per year in the salary structure of the judges, and this will be in force with retrospective effect as from 1 January 1978, to coincide with the other salary adjustments that have been announced. It is good to see that a Bill of this nature is not contentious and that the judges are not begrudged this salary adjustment. To the general public as well as some of the newspapers, the amounts will seem to be very big, but a critical analysis will soon reveal the sacrifices and hardships on the part of the judges. The remuneration contained in the schedule does not compensate for these sacrifices, nor is it intended to, of course.

When a member of the advocacy is appointed to the Bench, his income as a judge is almost always considerably less than his income from his own private practice. This aspect inevitably leads to a lowering in the standard of living of these people. That, Mr. Speaker, is the one side of the matter. The other aspect is that the colleagues of the judge who have not been appointed to the Bench continue with their practices and increase their income as a result of their own productivity. Therefore the gap between the income of the judge and that of his colleague in practice becomes bigger and bigger. These factors inevitably make it very difficult for the advocate who is eventually called to the Bench. There are also implications when these people are approached by the Government to be appointed to the Bench.

It has been suggested that the solution to this problem is to appoint people who do not belong to the Bar. At one stage there were even rumours that public prosecutors in the employ of the Attorney-General should be considered for appointment. In this connection I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to maintain the present status quo as long as possible. Although employed advocates have the same academic qualifications and have fulfilled the requirements for admission to the profession just like their counterparts at the Bar, the careers of these people in the administration of justice are inevitably completely different. The one is limited to the criminal courts by the circumstances of his profession, while the other deals with the whole spectrum of the law. Criminal law has its own norms according to which justice is administered and these differ from the norms which apply to the adjudication of civil cases. The advantage of the practitioner is that he can gain experience in all these fields and can concentrate on the practical aspects. That makes him by far the most suitable person for appointment to the Bench.

When the remuneration of judges is being considered, the capacities and functions of these people should also be taken into account. The judicial officer has to take note of the total spectrum of human relations and attitudes. He dare not believe that his own requirements are representative of the needs of the community as such. For that reason he must have a feeling for what is regarded as vitally important even on the lowest level of development. Regardless of his own view he must express what the law expects of him, and in doing so he must always try to be fair. His insight must range from the simplest wrong which has been done to the extremely specialized technical aspects that have become so much a part of our everyday lives. For these extraordinary qualities he is never really remunerated.

Another aspect is that our judges use their own private libraries in many cases, and anyone in the profession will know only too well that it costs thousands of rands to build up such libraries through the years. It is the policy of the department to provide judges with some of the standard and replacement text books which they need for reference purposes. As a result of the high prices and a shortage of funds, it is not always possible to implement this policy and to satisfy the needs.

Because law books are the instruments with which these people have to do the greater part of their work, and because it is essential in the interests of justice that they be provided with these instruments, I want to plead that more money be voted for this purpose when the opportunity arises.

In the present economic situation, the term “productivity” has been increasingly emphasized. In this connection I have to break a lance for our judges who never consider themselves bound to time when it comes to the fulfilment of their duties. It is not always realized that these people work late into the night and even during holidays on their long and complicated judgments. The general public is only acquainted with the functions performed by the judge when, dressed in his red gown, he adjudicates in criminal trials in packed court-rooms. Few people are aware of the complications of society and the conflicting interests on which he has to adjudicate in his black gown when cases are put to him in almost empty court-rooms.

Although the Criminal Procedure Act, which was passed by this House recently, definitely relieved the work-load in criminal trials in certain fields, the civil cases continue unabated and in certain provincial divisions there is a real need for more personnel.

South Africa’s body politic is very privileged in that when we talk about the separation of powers, it can be stated categorically that the judicial authority in South Africa is absolutely separated from the legislative and executive authority. Whatever is said abroad about this authority, it is a fact that the Bench is not subjected to any external influence or pressure. Judges perform the task entrusted to them with the greatest objectivity and integrity towards everyone who appears before them, regardless of race or colour. Where the law demands it, they do not hesitate even to rule against the State with all its ramifications if the State is at fault. If only the critics of this authority would take the trouble to refer to the decided cases and to be honest with themselves, they would not need to waste their breath on speculations and falsehoods which only injure the dignity of this institution.

With the emergence of the independent states within the borders of the Republic of South Africa, it is gratifying that, in response to the needs in these areas, some of our senior judges are being seconded to these areas where they act as chief justices and perform a tremendous task. This ensures a positive interaction in the field of the administration of justice which also ensures continuity in those states until such time as the legal profession in those areas has developed to the point where they can appoint their own people to these posts. The relations between the states at this level once again prove the bona fides of the Government when homelands are being led to maturity.

Therefore we should never fail to have the necessary respect and appreciation for the dedication and understanding these people have and for what they do in the interest of the community of the Republic of South Africa and its image. For this reason this Bill should be supported.

Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I find it somewhat confusing that I, who was so recently a “maiden” myself, am now on my feet for the third time in order to congratulate someone who has just made a maiden speech. As a matter of interest, two of the maiden speeches I have had to comment on have been by members of constituencies adjoining my own.

That is a sign of the times.

The first time I in fact met or saw the hon. member for East London City was at the nomination meeting in the East London magistrates’ court in October when, frankly, he did come as somewhat of a surprise. Originally, we were under the impression that East London City was not going to be contested.

In fact, we understood that the PFP had decided to put up a candidate, which they did, in order to prevent the then sitting member of East London City, Mr. Harland Bell, from helping me to fight against them. We then heard that the Nationalists were going to put up a candidate purely to prevent the same member, Mr. Harland Bell, from helping with the election in King William’s Town. Thus we ended up with a three-cornered fight in East London City, and of course, the hon. member who now represents that constituency, did gain by this.

He got an overall majority nevertheless.

I must congratulate him on having achieved a place in the House. I hope he will be able to follow in the footsteps of his predecessor, who, I believe, did make a very big contribution in the House for a number of years and who, I am quite sure, will one day be back here again. However, it gives me great pleasure to welcome the hon. member for East London City. I hope that his career in the House will give him pleasure and will also contribute to the debates within this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I must confess it is pleasant to stand up and talk about a Bill before the House without finding that some previous speaker has moved that it be read this day six months or that there are likely to be divisions, etc. We should also like to associate ourselves with the fact that, very obviously, the judges in this country are definitely in need of additional remuneration. I was in fact surprised to hear the hon. member for Sandton mentioning that the judges had not had an increase since 1975. This being the case, this increase is certainly well overdue. After all, these are the people who are the guardians of our society. Without, Mr. Speaker, the rule of law in South Africa there would be chaos, confusion and anarchy. It is our judges to whom we look to interpret the laws that are passed in this Parliament. They are, in fact, the guardians of our civilized society. As such, they need to have the status and the remuneration within the community that is their just due.

However, I would like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention one further facet of this matter which I am sure he has thought of, and which should, I think, be aired in this House. That concerns the pensions of judges and of their widows.

What about Kowie?

Mr. Speaker, I think we will leave the hon. member for Johannesburg North alone for the time being. Seriously, this is a plea to the hon. the Minister to consider the position of judges who have recently retired or perhaps the windows of judges who have recently retired. After all, we have not had an increase in the remuneration of judges since 1975. There must have been a number of judges who have, for instance, retired during the course of 1977 and who probably deserved some sort of increase in remuneration before they actually retired. Everybody who retired prior to 1 January of this year is going to have his pension pegged, I assume, on the previous rate of pay that the judges received before the increase which we are about to authorize today. I think the hon. the Minister should give consideration to the question of predating the increase to include judges who have recently retired. This will enable them also to share, in their well-earned and well-deserved retirement, the advantages of the new increases.

Where do you draw the line?

Mr. Speaker, there is a loud interjection from the other side asking where one would draw the line. I would not presume to tell the hon. the Minister where to draw the line. I am quite sure he is capable of drawing his own lines.

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to take advantage of the introduction of this amending Bill to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention an anomaly which exists in the Judges’ Remuneration and Pensions Act as it stands at the moment. The hon. member who has just sat down has linked the salaries to the pensions and that, of course, is quite correct because the percentages which the retired judges get are directly linked with the salaries. The pension is a percentage of the salary plus a basic amount.

There is an anomaly in the Act which has, of course, persisted since time immemorial which I think the hon. the Minister should correct. That anomaly concerns the definition of “judge”. I do not know whether hon. members in this House are aware of the fact that this is a completely discriminatory piece of legislation as far as males are concerned. I am here striking a blow for the unfortunate male who is not able to do so for himself. The definition of “judge” is—

That means that the widower of a female judge does not get a pension. I think I am right in saying that there is at present only one female judge in South Africa. However, I look forward to the time when there will be several female judges in South Africa. It would seem to me to be manifestly unfair that when female judges die their widowers are not able to receive the same pensions that the widows of male judges are able to receive when they die. Therefore I want to bring this matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention to see whether we can have the definition rectified as it is clearly discriminatory and for which, I believe, no rationale can be advanced.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks to hon. members for their support of this Bill. We expected this, of course. I also want to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for East London City on his very interesting maiden speech. However, I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that some of our foremost jurists have been people from the Civil Service. In this connection I think for example of Judge of Appeal Botha, Judge of Appeal Toon van den Heever and Chief Justice L. C. Steyn. These people all came from the Government administration. I am quite aware of and I support the idea that we should follow the system which we have always followed and that we should, wherever possible, appoint judges from the ranks of the practising advocates. There is of course one condition here and that is that suitable people must be available. The position is generally that we—I now refer to Parliament and myself—have always made recommendations to the State President according to the conventions existing between the Minister of Justice and the Bars.

The hon. member for East London North referred to pensions and I can assure him that we are already devising a pension system for the widows of judges. We are considering the whole matter with regard to pensions for judges. As far as the arguments of the hon. member for Houghton are concerned, I want to tell her that this time it is not discrimination against the ladies, but against the men. For that reason the hon. member did not break a lance for the women today; she broke a lance for the men.

I said so.

I am glad to hear that the hon. member said that … [Interjections.] The argument of the hon. member for Houghton is of course a good one, because if one grants a pension to the widow of a judge, one should automatically grant a pension to a widower of a judge as well. Up to now we have found that these people do not need such pensions. After all, the purpose of such a pension is to keep someone going. It is not a type of remuneration. However, I shall pay attention to the matter again.

I also want to take the opportunity this afternoon to express my very great appreciation to our Bench. This House is not the place to discuss the domestic affairs of judges and I do not believe the judges would like it if we discussed their personal problems regarding finance, etc., in this House.

Hon. members have not done that either, and for that I am very grateful. Judges are of course not civil servants. They are people who are completely independent of everyone and that is why we have to introduce a Bill in this House, because they do not automatically and administratively get the same as civil servants. That is the way it should be. We are all very proud of the fact that we have one of the most independent Benches in the world. In my opinion that is a reputation which we can be proud of, and I can say with great gratitude and appreciation that our Bench performs an extremely difficult task under very difficult circumstances and that they are true to the highest traditions of our administration of justice.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I am merely taking advantage of the situation to tell the hon. the Minister that there is no means test as far as judges’ pensions are concerned in regard to widows. They could be millionairesses in their own right and still receive pensions. Therefore the hon. the Minister’s argument is completely irrelevant.

Mr. Speaker, I merely stand up to take the opportunity of saying to the hon. member for Houghton: I shall never live to see the day that she does not have the last word. [Interjections.]

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As the Bill is in fact a consolidation of the existing legislation with regard to the sugar industry and contains a few new principles, the hon. members will probably find it more interesting if I discuss the sugar industry as such, rather than individual clauses. It is interesting that the sugar industry of South Africa was established during the 19th century when one Edmund Morewood began planting sugar cane with imported cane seed. According to tradition he went bankrupt. In the circumstances there was of course no Sugar Act and my information is that this no longer happens to people in the sugar industry.

Over the years the industry has grown and has gone from strength to strength, to such an extent that it is today one of the most important industries in our national economy. It is a well-known fact that our sugar industry is held in high esteem both here and abroad. This also applies to the people involved in the industry itself. I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to pay tribute to those who have served the sugar industry over many years with great distinction and dedication. In this specific connection I should like to mention the name of one person, viz. Mr. Lloyd, who will retire as Chairman of the Sugar Association during July 1978. He concludes a career of more than 42 years in the sugar industry, of which he served 22 years as chairman in some executive capacity. I gladly pay tribute to the exceptional service he rendered the industry locally, but also to the very high esteem which he gained for South Africa with his refined behaviour and knowledge of the industry itself.

Recognition should also be afforded the efficiency of the agricultural part of the industry—the farms, mills and factories—as well as the efficient way in which the industry is organized.

I can highlight the following facts—and they are indeed achievements of which we can be proud—as being characteristic of the industry today. The sugar industry has now reached the stage at which its production potential is estimated at between 2,1 and 2,2 million tons per season. The surface area planted with sugar cane comprises 383 000 ha and provides for at the moment 2 000 White and 7 500 non-White growers in the agricultural sector of the industry. The processing sector in turn consists of 18 factories and one central refinery. At the moment the sugar industry provides work for 146 000 White and non-White employees.

At the moment the local market consumes approximately 1 million tons of sugar or, in other words, 50% of the annual sugar production. In the 1977-’78 season a record quantity of 1,3 million tons of sugar, to the value of R183,4 million, was exported. At earlier and more favourable prices than those prevailing on the international market at the moment, sugar exports for the 1974 calendar year, for example, earned R233 million for South Africa in foreign exchange.

What is important is that to me, the sugar industry is one of the best examples of the close and intimate relationship that exists between agriculture, on the one hand, and secondary industry, the manufacturing industries, on the other. It is a bond which I believe is to the advantage of both, viz. the producer and the industry itself. Understandably enough—this applies to other industries as well—the agricultural sector has certain needs and problems which can be identified and which can also differ very widely from those of the secondary industry. Therefore, it became clear right at the outset that for organizing purposes there was a need for an organization to be built up in the industry itself, and for the two sectors to make decisions jointly about matters of general interest in a controlling body. This need led to the existing legislation and the establishment of producer associations for the cane growers on the one hand, and the millers on the other. The controlling body is the S.A. Sugar Association, which negotiates officially on behalf of all parties in the agricultural and in the manufacturing sector. An organization which has to serve so many divergent interests, but which, above all, has also to reconcile so many divergent points of view, has an important task. The measure in which they have succeeded in reconciling these interests, is evidence of the excellent work done by the Sugar Association over the years.

With regard to the financial regulation of the industry, the situation is that the proceeds from sales are pooled and every interested party is compensated from the pool on a basis determined from time to time by the Minister of Economic Affairs in consultation with the sugar industry itself. The total proceeds must not, of course, be less than the total payment, and because the return for both sectors is very low under present circumstances, it is difficult to effect further savings in respect of payments. This has led to the Government being obliged last year to effect relatively drastic increases in the internal price of sugar, especially with a view to compensating for the ever-rising costs and the falling world price of sugar.

I want to emphasize the fact that it is praiseworthy that our sugar industry has been able to supply sugar to the domestic consumer for many years at prices far lower than the true production costs of the product or commodity supplied to the public. This was made possible by the favourable prices for our export sugar on the world market. This enabled us to build up a strong price stabilization fund during those years. Unfortunately world prices have been so low in recent times that the price stabilization fund has now virtually been exhausted.

On the other hand there is a positive movement and a phenomenon which I want to point out. That is that South Africa has recently participated in the negotiations which led to the concluding of an International Sugar Agreement which will apply for five years as from 1 January 1978. The main purpose of the agreement is to balance the supply of sugar on the world market with the demand, in an effort to stabilize the world market price on a realistic level. Although it can be expected in all reasonableness that the present low price of sugar will still apply for a considerable time, the agreement provides for a sliding scale in price starting at a floor price which is realistic in relation to the production costs. To achieve the ideal of a higher and stable price, marketing quotas have been allocated to the various producer countries that signed the agreement, and arrangements have been made for the storage of buffer supplies by producer countries. The quote allocated to South Africa is approximately 740 000 tons and is—and I want to emphasize this—much smaller than its exports in recent years. As long as world prices are so low, it can be expected that the quota will temporarily drop even further.

It has, however, been decided not to reduce production at the moment but rather to leave a decision in that specific regard until a later stage, when more knowledge and information about the movement of prices in the international market will be available. In terms of the agreement, buffer supplies have to be built up this year in any case which, in my opinion, makes it unnecessary to reduce production immediately.

†As members of this hon. House would know, it is standing Government policy that legislation be updated from time to time. The purpose of this Bill is therefore in the first place to repeal the Sugar Act, 1936, as well as the amending Acts from that date, and to substitute the 1936 Act, as amended, with legislation based on similar principles which at the same time comply with present-day requirements for legislation considered by Parliament.

I therefore submit that it is not necessary at this stage to take up the time of this hon. House by a detailed explanation of the principles contained in the Bill, as they are, as I have indicated already, essentially the same as those contained in the present Sugar Act, 1936. The only new concepts contained in the Bill are those that provide for the incorporation of the S.A. Sugar Association as a juristic person and for the exemption from the payment of duties and certain costs on transfer of assets of the association into the name of the association itself.

I may finally add that the sugar industry is not only one of the oldest industries in South Africa, but also one of the most important in terms of its capital investment, people employed and the earning of foreign exchange to South Africa.

From this point of view it is therefore important that legislation controlling this industry should as far as possible be of such a nature that it not only enhances the efficiency of the industry itself, but also contributes towards its interests as well as those of the public at large.

The Bill is introduced with a view to achieving these aims on the same basis as provided for in the provisions of the present Act.

Mr. Speaker, in general terms we in these benches would have severe reservations about the Bill as legislation, but we know that it relates specifically to the sugar industry and exclusively to the sugar industry, and naturally, as the hon. the Minister has indicated in his introductory speech to the Second Reading, a speech which he delivered with very great charm and a very real understanding of the industry, this relates to the interests particularly of the South African sugar industry. Therefore I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. the Minister when he paid tribute to the contribution which the industry has made to South Africa. I would also like to associate myself with the hon. the Minister’s tribute to Mr. Anson Lloyd for the part which he has played within the industry. I happen to have known him for some 30 years and I vouch for him, as does the hon. the Minister, as a man of considerable integrity and a man of considerable ability. I am very pleased to associate myself with the tribute which the hon. the Minister has paid to him.

We know that when we deal with the industry we are dealing with what in many respects is a model industry, as the hon. the Minister indicated in his speech. It is a model industry which is of very considerable importance to South Africa. We know, too, that the sugar industry has always had a unique association with successive Governments. It has kept itself outside the arena of party politics. As an industry it has dealt directly and has wanted to deal directly with the particular Government of the day. This seems to have worked extremely well, and we know that this legislation is an attempt to regulate that continued association between the industry and the Government of the day.

I must say, in looking at the legislation, and as I indicated in the first sentence when I got up to speak to this Second Reading, that one would normally be very critical of the very extensive powers which it gives to the hon. the Minister. We have, however, discussed the legislation with the industry concerned and we know that the Bill comes before the House with the blessing of those interested in the sugar industry. Speaking generally of the sugar industry, as the hon. the Minister has done this afternoon, we know, of course, that it always faces a number of threats. It faces threats of withdrawal of quotas, perhaps because of overproduction in the rest of the world, and we know that it also faces threats because its quotas are negotiated internationally and therefore are always susceptible to threats by way of boycotts or sanctions, or matters of political concern. We know that it also faces the threat of the anti-sugar lobby from the health point of view, from people who say that people should consume less and less sugar. So these are some of the hazards which this great industry of South Africa does face. These are factors which affect the industry. We know also that it is very often subjected to criticism from people who do not understand how the industry operates. There is no greater example of this than on the question of price. I think there are very few people in South Africa who realize that the internal price of sugar in South Africa is subsidized from the export price of the commodity. I think this is something the hon. the Minister and his department and others should stress in order to let the public understand more clearly what the contribution is which the sugar industry makes to the economy of South Africa.

We have done that rather successfully in the past.

Well, I hope the hon. the Minister will continue to do so. While one is talking about price, I hope that the hon. the Minister will take the opportunity this afternoon, while dealing with the industry, of giving some sort of assurance that there will not be a rise in the internal price of sugar at the present time, because the hon. the Minister has the power—it is one of the powers given him in terms of this legislation—to fix the price of sugar. I think it would be helpful if the hon. the Minister were able to give the country an assurance that there was no immediate likelihood of the internal price of sugar being increased. We know that, notwithstanding the anti-sugar lobby from the health point of view, it is still a very important part of the basic diet of the vast majority of underprivileged people in South Africa. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us that reassurance.

I want to deal briefly with the very considerable powers which the hon. the Minister does have in terms of this legislation. I think he has shown that he has an understanding of these powers, but again I would like an assurance on this point. It gives him powers to determine the actual agreement with the industry. It gives him powers to deal with arrangements between millers and growers and refiners. It gives him powers, as I have said, to fix the price paid by the millers to the growers. It also gives him powers, of course, to fix the price paid by the consumer for sugar in South Africa. If one looks particularly at clause 4 of the Bill, one finds that it gives the hon. the Minister all these powers. In clause 6 the Bill makes provision for the hon. the Minister to prescribe penalties for people who transgress any of the agreements which may be entered into. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some sort of assurance that he is sensitive to the very considerable powers which he is going to have in terms of this legislation. I hope he will also give us an assurance that he will exercise these powers with discretion, and always, as in the past, in full consultation with the sugar industry itself.

With those few words we on this side of the House are happy to give this legislation our blessing for the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I have the impression that the hon. member for Musgrave accepted this Bill very reluctantly and that he was a bit disappointed that the sugar industry had in fact approved of this legislation. I say this because the hon. member dealt quite extensively with powers which the hon. the Minister will by implication not use properly. Whatever the case may be, I think that we are all aware, and that the hon. member for Musgrave should also be aware, of the fact that until 1975 the sugar industry enjoyed good times. That good fortune was also passed on to the consumer of sugar in South Africa. It was not only enjoyed by the producer and by the industry, but also by the consumer, because the domestic price of sugar was not increased during those years. It was in fact reduced on two occasions, in 1972 and 1974. However, for the past three years—and I am referring to this particularly because the hon. member for Musgrave asked for assurances here this afternoon in connection with the price of sugar—the industry has been struggling against rising production costs and also against low export prices. The request by the hon. member for Musgrave to the hon. the Minister to give certain assurances in my view points to a lack of sensitivity to the difficult times being experienced by the sugar industry. As is the case with other agricultural products in South Africa, sugar is subject to wide fluctuations in production. South Africa is the world’s fifth largest exporter of sugar and the industry is extremely vulnerable to the uncertainties of fluctuations in prices. It has been said that the most stable feature of the industry during the past 10 years has been the steady and low prices at which the industry has sold its product to its South African customers and, of course, also in vastly increasing quantities. In 1966-’67 the sugar consumption in South Africa was 670 000 tons. In that year white and brown sugar was sold at an average price of R115 per ton. In 1975-’76 the consumption increased by 360 000 tons to reach more than 1 million tons and the average price then was only R107 per ton. These statistics speak for themselves. The fact remains that the sugar industry most certainly has made its contribution to stabilizing the cost of living and also in the fight against inflation.

*In general it can be said, as was clearly stated by the hon. the Minister, that the South African sugar industry maintains a high standard of production. The industry applies extensive research and it is interesting to note that the research takes place at the industry’s expense. The various branches of that extensive industry are always being adapted in order to increase efficiency. Therefore, in a nutshell, it may be said that the sugar industry is a fine show-case for our agricultural as well as our manufacturing industries. All these facets of the industry have had the effect that the South African consumer has been able to enjoy the privilege of a constant and low sugar price for many years.

Those who know the sugar industry, know that the profits of the industry have now been cut to the bone. Those who criticize profits, should have regard to the fact that private enterprise is basic to the South African economy, but that the profit motive is the very thing on which private enterprise relies. This is something which we must never forget.

Under the present circumstances I believe that there is good justification at present for the sugar industry to recover in full its increased production costs. This will also ensure that our sugar production is maintained and one realizes the importance of this to the South African economy particularly if one takes a closer look at the sugar industry. I shall digress very briefly on this. During the present season, the sugar industry will spend approximately R100 million in cash on wages and salaries; it will spend approximately R85 million inside South Africa on the transportation of cane sugar and molasses; approximately R40 million on fertilizer and weed killers; approximately R40 million on the replacement of capital goods; and approximately R15 million on food provided free of charge to the workers of the industry. Consequently it occupies a significant place in the South African economy.

The hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Musgrave and I referred to the efficiency of the industry in general. Therefore I regret having to refer to a problem in the industry which one would not actually expect in such a well-organized industry. It is a problem which the Sugar Association and the Millers Association have apparently not been able to solve up to now. I referred this problem to the hon. the Minister a short time ago, and I shall now explain very briefly what it is.

It concerns the recovery of costs, by the millers, in connection with the transportation of cane. There are certain millers who have no or hardly any costs in connection with the transportation of their growers’ cane. Yet they received money in the past in respect of such costs on the basis of a pool system, even though they had hardly any or no costs in this regard. In 1974, however, an industrial committee rectified the matter. The principle was accepted at the time that those millers who really had transport costs were entitled to recover them directly while those who had no or hardly any costs, would not be entitled to share in the pool. This decision was apparently implemented for two years, but after that a number of millers suddenly rejected the system and terminated their contributions to the cane transportation scheme. I shall not burden the House with any further details in this regard, except to say that the matter was referred to the hon. the Minister and in the light of the industry’s striving after efficiency and justice, I have every confidence that the industry itself, with the encouragement of the hon. the Minister, will rectify the matter.

There is something which I should just like to mention in conclusion. My constituency has major sugar interests. Since I have been representing the constituency I have received nothing but good treatment from the hon. the Minister and the Department. Therefore, I can assure hon. members that the understanding and knowledge of this industry displayed the hon. the Minister, is appreciated not only by myself, but by all the cane growers and millers in my area.

Mr. Speaker, I do think it is quite a change to be able to stand up in this hon. House and take part in a debate in which there are no political feelings criss-crossing the floor.

Sweet reasonableness.

I do not know, of course, whether all hon. members realize that the sugar industry itself has its own political system continually at work. I am referring to the fact that there are two parties involved in the sugar industry, i.e. the growers and the millers. If there is one reason why the sugar industry is as prosperous as it is, it is because of this internal politicking and competition between these two groups which I believe serves to make the industry as efficient as it is today. I think it is a credit to the industry that these two bodies can resolve their difficulties as well as they have done in the past.

Before I go on to the main aspect of my speech, I should like to associate myself with the hon. the Minister’s tribute to Mr. Anson Lloyd, a person whom I and my colleague, the hon. member for Umhlanga, have known for many years. Mr. Lloyd has been a true stalwart in the sugar industry. He has led many overseas delegations to further the interests of the sugar industry in the export field, and I think he richly deserves the title that many of us give him, the title of “Mr. Sugar”. He certainly is “Mr. Sugar”. One could consider him to be the Prime Minister of the sugar political system, because that is what the chairman of the Sugar Association inevitably is.

The hon. member for Musgrave did mention that he thought that the Bill gives extensive powers to the Minister, but I should like to point out that this Bill is an improvement on the old Act because, if one studies it, one repeatedly sees the words “after consultation with” and “at the request of the S.A. Sugar Association” used. I think this is an improvement on the existing Act because in terms of that Act the Minister has powers to go ahead and decide things without consulting the industry, not that past Ministers and the present hon. Minister have done such a thing, but they did have that power. I was very pleased to see these words put into the Bill. In fact, I have an amendment on the Order Paper to have those words included in clause 10 as well, which concerns the making of regulations. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will be able to accept that amendment.

Yes, I shall accept it.

I am glad to hear that. I do believe it is most important that the Sugar Association should be consulted in all matters concerning the industry. Its members, consisting of the growers, the millers and also the refiners, are fully aware of the problems facing the industry and therefore they are best qualified to judge what remedial measures should be taken to solve those problems.

I believe that the success the industry has enjoyed in the past is due to the ability of these people to solve their own problems. It has been said in this debate that the sugar industry is a model industry and that it takes on the appearance of being an extremely prosperous industry. In some respects this is correct. Hard work usually brings forth its rewards and I believe the sugar industry has worked hard in the past. However, this was not always the case. Prior to the 1936 Act being promulgated, the sugar industry experienced extremely hard times. This was mainly due to lack of technology. There were many insect pests which plagued the industry, and there was not the variety of sugar canes that the industry has today. Furthermore, the industry as a whole did not fully understand the fertility problems which exist in the sugar belt. Apart from these factors, there was also the rather chaotic situation which arose at that time because of the inequitable approach towards the growing and milling of cane and especially towards the marketing of sugar and the distributing of the proceeds resulting from the sale of sugar. This resulted in many bitter arguments in the early days between the millers and the growers. There have been books written on this subject and, if one speaks to any of the old timers in the sugar industry, they will tell one of some of the earlier battles. It was because of these early battles that the sugar political system emerged between the millers and the growers, an action that culminated in the 1936 Act which brought stability to the industry in respect of these grower/miller relationships. Under the 1936 Act the industry went ahead to solve many of the major problems facing it at that time. They established an Agricultural research station and experimental farms. A sugar milling research institute has also been established. A great deal was done to rationalize the milling quotas and the transportation of sugar cane between the various mills and, of course, of sugar to the port of Durban and to the major markets of South Africa.

Another major crisis point arose in 1961 when South Africa became a Republic and the industry lost its Commonwealth-preference market, mainly in Britain. At about the same time there was the collapse of the international sugar agreement, mainly due to Cuba, which was party to that agreement, deciding to flood the export market with in excess of one million tons of non-quota sugar. Just prior to this, the industry was faced with a period of restrictions on production during which growers were forced to plough out some of their cane due to the lack of markets. The collapse of the international sugar agreement resulted in an international scramble for export markets. It is indicative of the spirit of the sugar industry that its members at that time, faced with the loss of the Commonwealth market, and with restrictions at home, decided to expand local production in order to get into this major export market. This the industry did with great skill at a time, might I say, when the name of South Africa in international sugar circles was very bad indeed because of political reasons. When one speaks to the delegates who attended some of those earlier negotiations it is clear that South African delegates were not treated with the same hospitality as is the case today. However, the industry, with skill, diplomacy and negotiation, achieved great success. This has resulted in the tremendous volume of sugar which was exported last year, in excess of 1,3 million tons. I believe this great drive to export sugar has been to the benefit of South Africa. At its peak, the industry earned in excess of R300 million in foreign exchange as someone mentioned earlier on.

As a result of this period of expansion I believe we can say that the members of our sugar industry who go out into the international sugar councils are today highly respected by those people whom they meet. They are respected for their integrity in their business dealings. There was a time when the South African sugar industry committed itself to export markets at a particular price. In the meantime the world price of sugar rose and while some countries reneged on their contracts in order to obtain the higher price, at a time, incidentally, when South African production had dropped because of drought, the sugar industry of this country met its contracts. In order to supply the South African market, the industry went onto the world sugar market to buy sugar at a loss in order to supply the domestic market. This is the type of integrity displayed by the South African sugar industry which has earned it the high respect which it enjoys today. This is not only the case in regard to business matters but also as far as its technology is concerned. At the International Sugar Technologists’ Congress held in Brazil last year our delegates—so I have been informed—were considered to be the top delegation attending that congress. This high standard may be observed in both the farming methods employed in the industry today and also in its labour relations which includes the welfare and training of labour. As someone has said—I think it was the hon. member for Eshowe—the industry can be considered a model industry.

It is worth noting that the industry itself finances, from its own proceeds, its own research, its extension amongst growers, the running of its training establishments, its artisan training schools and the marketing of its products overseas. It is this enterprising approach of the industry which has built it up, and it is worth nothing—and I would like to stress this—that this has been done at no cost to the South African taxpayer. Even more important is the fact that, as has already been mentioned, the industry supplies the South African consumer with sugar below cost. It was mentioned that the industry subsidizes the consumer. The exact figure, over a period of five to six years up to a year ago, was of the order of R250 million. That is the extent to which the local consumer was subsidized. This was achieved primarily because of the industry’s efforts in regard to the export market.

It has been mentioned that the industry is presently going through a difficult period due to the collapse of the international agreement some years ago. We now have over-production throughout the world with the world price at a very low level. This year the stabilization fund was depleted and I would now like to take issue with the hon. the Minister in regard to the question of the stabilization fund. Because of the depletion of the stabilization fund there has had to be a considerable increase in the domestic price of sugar over the last year or two. I believe we must learn from past experience. During the period when the industry enjoyed high world prices, the stabilization fund was built up to a level of about R85 million.

Over R100 million.

It was built up to over R100 million. I will not blame this hon. Minister, but it was his predecessor who, at a time when he saw the level of the fund rise above R100 million, decided to reduce the domestic price of sugar. I believe this was done for political reasons. I believe it was very unwise, because it was done at a time of severe inflation in South Africa. I also believe it is a wrong principle to undervalue any agricultural product relative to other products and other commodities during a period of inflation. This was a major error, because it raped the Stabilization Fund for political reasons. Had the price not been reduced at the time, a further R50 million could have been added to the Stabilization Fund. In fact, had the hon. the Minister at the time followed a policy of prudent price increases—I am not saying he had to increase them at the rate of inflation, but even if it had been a third of the rate of inflation—he could have increased the Stabilization Fund to a level in excess of R200 million. Had this been done, the South African market or consumer would not have had to face the tremendous increases which they have had to do in the last year or two.

I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to review the role of the Stabilization Fund. The PSF, as it is called, is really an export price stabilization fund. That is to say when excessive profits are earned during a high export price period, this surplus money should be put into a stabilization fund in order to secure both the export market and also the industry, and to provide for the time when the export price drops to the levels such as are presently being experienced. I believe the industry is prepared to establish a stabilization fund by creaming off these high profits during the good years, but I believe too that it resents the fact that this should be used by the hon. the Minister in order to give the South African consumer a little kickback. After having done this and when the world price drops, then the hon. the Minister says— the hon. member for Musgrave also suggested it—that the industry must now carry the can, if I may use that expression, during a time of low world prices to the extent where the industry is not earning a reasonable return on its capital. Late in 1977, as the hon. the Minister said earlier, the international agreement was settled after a lot of hard bargaining and South Africa now has a reasonably good quota. It does mean, however, that restriction is now facing the industry at a time when the export prices are still low, and at a time when we are experiencing a high rate of inflation. The hon. the Minister still insists, however, that the sugar industry should only recover 70% of the inflation in its costs and that it must carry the balance itself. He also insists that the return on capital should be pegged at what I consider to be unrealistic levels in present-day circumstances.

The grower’s return on capital, as expressed as a proportion of his total income, is decreasing to a point where the grower finds that there is no incentive to reinvest any profit or any new capital in improvements to his farm. During the boom period in Australia— we were experiencing one at the same time— the Australian sugar industry passed on these profits to the growers and many of the farmers used this money, this windfall, to improve their lands, to remove stones from the fields and to do a lot of land levelling so as to ensure that the mechanization which they have now been forced into could be done in the most economic manner. The South African industry was not allowed, however, to enjoy this same windfall and was not allowed to expand its capital expenditure on its farms. I want to stress that much capital expenditure is required today in the sugar industry, especially in the field of housing. Recently in the Press, as well as on BBC-TV, there have been great so-called “exposures” of the housing conditions of labourers in the sugar industry. I believe a lot of this is just adverse propaganda, but I also believe there is still a lot of work to be done and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the matter as it is important to the future of the industry. The people in the sugar industry have shown that they are prepared to work hard and to make sacrifices, and provided that they are allowed to prosper they are also prepared to share some of their prosperity with South Africa and the consumer. However, I want to stress that the success of the sugar industry is due to its members and, as the hon. member for Eshowe said, due to their belief in the free enterprise system. They are entrepreneurs who are in business to make a profit. This spirit and attitude must be retained in the sugar industry.

In conclusion I should just like to say that it has often been said that the sugar industry is a sweet industry. I am sure the hon. the Minister has found that sugar people are in fact sweet people. I sincerely hope that he listens to their advice in matters affecting the sugar industry in the future, especially under the powers which he has under this bill, so that it can continue to contribute to the sweet life of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, my neighbour on the South Coast of Natal. I was still a sugar farmer when I last heard him speak. That hon. member worked for the S.A. Sugar Association at the time and I could hear this afternoon that he was in his element. He spoke very well, because he spoke about an organization which is well managed and controlled and which is a responsible one. Unfortunately the hon. member is not in a position to speak so well on political matters, because the organization which he represents does not have as clear a policy as the Sugar Association does, nor do I think his party has the necessary organization and leadership. [Interjections.]

When I last heard the hon. member speaking, it was his task to tell me, as a farmer, how I should look after my tractor. I must admit that he did it well. However, in order to tell me how the tractor should be looked after, he first had to tell me that I was not looking after my tractor properly. That is why he was an important link in the organization. Unfortunately, this is a role which he has to fulfil in that party too. One is reluctant to drag politics into the debate, especially after the hon. member’s reference to the “sweet industry”. However, it seems to me that the House should shift this little party from Natal aside for us Natalians, because there are now more Natalians in the NP than in the NRP. I believe that we will have an opportunity later on to remonstrate with this party in Natal and to tell the House how they acted in the past election.

What clause are you talking about?

I am still coming to the Bill. We hope and trust that we will have the opportunity to tell you, Mr. Speaker, how things went with that party and how they acted. That opportunity will arise. I do not want to waste the hon. members’ time with it this afternoon, because it is not relevant now.

Now you are waking up!

If I am challenged to take the matter further, I should like to say—if I am allowed to do so—that during the past election, the hon. members of the NRP …

Order! It is the policy of the Chair always to give an hon. member or hon. members an opportunity to make some political comments, but I cannot allow the hon. member to make such a long story of it. The hon. member must discuss the Bill now.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I abide by your ruling. I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the Bill he has introduced. As I see the Bill, the hon. the Minister is now reposing even greater trust in the South African sugar industry. The sugar industry certainly deserves that trust. We have heard that it is an industry which has always acted with the necessary responsibility. The industry probably has one of the best organizations in existence. In real terms, the industry has received 43% less for its product in comparison with other products from 1970 up to the present. The industry has been able to absorb this because there has been a combined effort. I should like to pay tribute to the South African sugar farmer in particular today. By means of mechanization, organization, fine extension services, excellent planning and the fact that they were prepared to do research themselves, these farmers have been able to absorb this difference. The South African sugar industry has a wonderful leader in Mr. Lloyd. Unfortunately, there are mouthpieces of the South African sugar industry who do not show the necessary responsibility. I really hope and trust that these people will see that the hon. the Minister has their interests at heart, and that they will not make irresponsible statements.

I want to refer to some of the things which were said during a meeting held by the Field Experiment Station at Mount Edgecombe in November 1976. Someone said there—

I also want to quote from the Sunday Times to indicate how they wanted to make political capital out of the sugar industry in Natal. The headline in Business Times of the Sunday Times of 17 April 1977 read as follows—

As soon as prices abroad are better, the hon. the Minister is accused of interfering with the sugar industry, but it is rather strange that as soon as the prices abroad drop below our domestic prices, those people are the first to approach the Minister, requesting him to intervene and help them.

Reference has also been made to the good relationship which exists between the producer and the miller. When a pincer movement arises in the industry, as happened in the early ’thirties and is happening again now, the producer points a finger at the miller. The producer accuses the miller of pocketing the profits. The opposite is also true. I believe that this proposed legislation will make people even more responsible and bring them even closer together, because it gives these people legal powers for taking action. I am speaking as a farmer now. Even though it has been said that it is an important industry, I do not believe that people fully realize what a tremendously important role sugar farming plays in the national economy. Until 1970, wool was one of the chief export products of this country. However, since 1970 maize and sugar cane have, on an equal footing, been two of the chief export products. There is a difference, however, and this is that sugar cane brings a steady amount of between R200 million and R300 million into the country. The foreign exchange earned by maize is just about the same, but the difference lies in the fact that one does not have that certainty with maize, because one will find that in dry years the foreign exchange income from maize drops to R70 million. The foreign exchange income from the total volume of processed agricultural products exported from 1974 to 1976 fluctuated between just more than R500 million and almost R650 million. However, what is important is that sugar comprised between one-third and one-half of the volume of processed agricultural products exported. I just want to add on behalf of our farmers that there are problems in the sugar industry. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that a well drawn-up document has been presented to him by the leader of Natal. His reply to it shows me that he is aware of the problems. I believe that the farmers share this view. Representations have been made that the domestic sugar price should not be increased. Nevertheless, it is still the lowest price in the world. I think I can say on behalf of our farmers that when it really comes to the pincer situation, the hon. the Minister will listen to our requests, just as he has done in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank hon. members for their co-operation in accepting the principles of the Bill. Let me start with the hon. member for Musgrave and immediately say that I am fully aware of the problems which the industry also faces in the international world. But I would suggest that the experience has indicated that notwithstanding the problems which we encounter in many fields, the industry has been successful in the international forums in coming to terms with their colleagues of other countries, also those countries which do not agree with or internal policies. The hon. member has also indicated that he would like to receive from me an assurance that the domestic price of sugar will not be increased in the immediate future. I wish I was in the position that I could give assurances across the board that prices will not increase in the foreseeable future. I might just point out that even at this point in time the domestic price of sugar is below the cost of production, and I think this redounds to the credit of both the producers and the industrialists themselves.

Therefore, although I do not see any immediate reason for an increase in the price of sugar on the domestic market, I think I would be treading on very dangerous grounds to give an emphatic assurance to this effect. I would like to indicate, however, that, naturally, we shall make every endeavour to ensure that the price of sugar does not increase. In any event, if there are to be increases, we shall endeavour to see that they are as low as possible.

The hon. member referred to the powers conferred on the Minister in terms of the Bill. It is true that these powers are considerable. I think that it is also true that in the past—the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has referred to this—there has been a very unique relationship between the industry and the Department of Industries and also my predecessors. As a lawyer I fully realize that when powers of this nature are conferred on Ministers they should be applied with the greatest circumspection. I think hon. members will find the evidence from the industries which are affected by the action of Ministers in terms of such powers, that the Ministers concerned have at all times worked in the closest collaboration with the industry itself. I propose to act in the same way in the future.

*The hon. member for Eshowe made mention of the problems encountered by the industry and of the progress which had been made in the meantime. The hon. member stressed one important facet in particular, one which I think warrants repetition. To be more specific, it is that this is one sector, even in the agricultural industry, which in the field of research was to a large extent not only thrown back on its own resources, but also willing to do its own research. I have had the opportunity of visiting these research institutions, and I can bear testimony here to the excellent work which the industry is doing at those institutions, work which is financed by the industry itself. Another important facet which I think deserves mention as well, is what the industry is doing for training in the industry itself. I have had the opportunity of visiting the training schools of the sugar industry. Like their research institutions, these training schools are of a very high standard and one can recommend them unreservedly.

One of the important problems to which the hon. member referred, was the question of transportation costs. I concede at once that this is a problem. The problem of transportation costs in the industry is something which has actually developed over the years, and it is extremely difficult to introduce a scheme which will generally satisfy all the parties concerned. I think it would probably be an ideal state of affairs if the transport costs were to be allocated to either the growers or the millers, naturally according to the circumstances. As an alternative, one could probably consider regarding such costs as industrial costs, naturally also on certain conditions. Over the years certain millers have paid transportation subsidies to the growers in their own areas. The object of paying the subsidies was, of course, to improve the flow of sugar cane to their own mills, so that the millers in turn could reduce their costs by handling larger volumes. Subsequently, however, this gave rise to considerable dissatisfaction, and in order to overcome the problems which had arisen, the present scheme was introduced.

At that stage there were millers—mainly smaller millers—who reluctantly agreed to the new arrangement. They are the millers who are now no longer prepared to abide by that. My view was that the parties concerned should really settle the problems of transportation themselves. I indicated, however, that if this were to be impossible, I would regard it as my unpleasant task to settle the matter. It seems unavoidable to me that I shall have to appoint an independent committee to investigate the matter and to make recommendations to me in an attempt to settle the dispute. I give the hon. member the undertaking that I shall attend to this problem as soon as possible.

The hon. member, like other hon. members, referred to the importance of the industry. It is perhaps interesting that I should point out that the sugar industry, apart from the fact that it has earned large amounts in foreign currency over the years, is also the only agricultural industry of which I know which does not sell its product in an unprocessed form, but which has all its products in all their forms undergo a certain measure of processing before they are marketed.

Therefore, sugar is a product to which an added value attaches, as opposed to the unprocessed product. That applies to domestic as well as foreign trade. If, in addition, bears in mind the fact that export of sugar products on a large scale also takes place indirectly, then, as far as the export trade is concerned, sugar grows in importance. Hon. members know that the price at which the industry supplies sugar to other manufacturing industries—for example to the canning industry—is lower than the normal price, but that we also export a considerable amount of sugar in that particular form. The reason why the industry sells sugar at a lower price in these specific cases, is to compensate for the levies which in turn apply with regard to products with a sugar content which are sold in the EEC countries.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke on the basis of a great deal of knowledge. I want to say at once that his judgment of the sugar industry is more subjective than my own. It is because he is personally involved in the industry. As the hon. member for South Coast indicated, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti used to be directly connected with the industry. He is now connected with the producing sector. As such, I am able to have sympathy for the standpoint of the hon. member as regards the Stabilization Fund.

†However, I would like to give the assurance to the House that my predecessor did not reduce the price of sugar for political reasons. I think that, at that stage, it was not possible to assess what the true strength of the Stabilization Fund should be. I believe the hon. member will be prepared to concede immediately, and in all fairness, that it is much easier to judge ex post facto what one should have done under certain circumstances than it is to judge while the said circumstances are still present. I would like to say, however, that we learn by lesson and by experience. I firmly believe that this fund must be fixed at an amount equivalent to the value of one year’s crop at least. That is my own opinion. I feel that is the most effective way to assure that there is stability. The hon. member, however, will also accept it when I correct a statement which he has made. The fund is being built up to stabilize the industry as a whole. It is no strange or novel phenomenon that export prices are being used to subsidize domestic prices; as a matter of fact, it happens in the case of many other agricultural products. *

*I think the hon. member will agree that we should try to give the people involved in the industry—i.e. the producers and also the manufacturing sector, in view of the interdependence which exists—a reasonable return on their investments. I have also indicated, however, that one will be able to comply with that requirement only when one’s price structures and the market are such that it can be done.

†It is true that in 1976 I instructed the Board of Trade to investigate the profitability of the industry, both from the primary producer’s and the secondary sector’s point of view. It is equally true that the board recommended that we should increase the returns in both cases. It was also recommended that we should change the basis of calculating the value of the assets on which the returns should be paid. I think it is being understood by all concerned that this is hardly the time to change over to a new system. I should, however, like to conclude by giving the assurance that whenever it is opportune, we shall have a serious and hard look at the profitability of the industry as a whole.

It should not be delayed too long.

I am not in a position to determine the time factor in this particular regard, but since we have arrived at an international agreement on marketing in the international market and we have also determined floor and ceiling prices, I have no doubt that we have all the indications that the price will rise to reasonable and realistic levels. Once we have attained such levels, we should have a serious look at the producers and the secondary industry. I shall surely do so.

*I want to conclude by saying that it is pleasant to hear an old university friend talk about an industry which has enabled him to devote less time to farming so that he may take a seat in Parliament. That indicates that the industry is not as badly off as we are inclined to think. He spoke with great praise of the industry itself and stressed its importance. I think it is common cause among all members of this House that here we have an industry which is really valuable to us as a result of its investment, its provision of employment and the foreign currency which it earns. This being so, it is fitting that when we talk about such an industry, we should do so in the spirit in which we have done it this afternoon. It was indeed a sweet and pleasant experience.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This concerns the making of regulations. The hon. the Minister has already indicated that he is prepared to accept the amendment.

That is correct.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members probably know, the objects of the Coloured Development Corporation, as laid down in its Act of foundation, are the encouragement and promotion of the advancement of Coloureds in Coloured and industrial areas, in the fields of industry, trade and finance, and the performance of such other tasks as the State President may determine by proclamation. This Act of foundation was passed in 1962 and the corporation commenced its activities on 1 August of that year. Since then, the corporation has been responsible for major achievements. But a long time has elapsed since it was founded and one could have expected that experience would in the course of time reveal shortcomings in the legislation and that it would be necessary to amend and amplify it to adapt to modern circumstances. This is being done in the Bill under consideration in respect of the following aspects—

1. (a) extension of the areas served by the corporation;
2. (b) the submission of matters to the Minister for a decision; and
3. (c) expansion of the corporation’s top management.

As regards the areas served by it, the general powers of the corporation, as contained in section 4 of Act No. 4 of 1962, are restrictively interpreted to mean that the corporation may at present be active only in “Coloured areas”—defined in the Act as being rural in terms of Act 24 of 1963, State land reserved for Coloureds and proclaimed group areas for the coloured group—and in “industrial areas”. At the present time it is considered an anomaly that because of this definition, the corporation is unable to finance Coloureds in any other area, even if the Coloured person or company applying for assistance legally owns and/or occupies, in terms of the Group Areas Act, immovable property in, for example, the controlled area or a group area for another population group. The corporation has received several applications from Coloureds wishing to establish or expand business enterprises in such areas, but has been unable to render any financial assistance because of the restrictions laid down by its Act of foundation.

It often happens, too, that the corporation wishes to establish an enterprise of its own there or receives an application for financial assistance in respect of premises situated in an area which is indisputably destined and earmarked to be declared a group area for Coloured people, but is unable, because of the definition of “Coloured area” in its Act of foundation, to be active there until such time as proclamation takes place, as has happened in several cases, the corporation has endless difficulties, because of constantly changing economic circumstances, with planning, costing, requisition of funds and land transactions. This is over and above the hardships this may entail for the Coloured entrepreneur as well as the Coloured public.

To summarize, therefore, it is believed to be in the interests of the Coloured population for the corporation to obtain the power to render assistance to a Coloured person or company in respect of any enterprise conducted on premises or part thereof legally owned or occupied by the person or company concerned, no matter where the land is situated. This can by no means be regarded as a suspension or frustration of the group areas policy and legislation, for in addition to the control which the State retains in the form of the granting of permits under the Group Areas Act, it is incumbent upon me as the responsible Minister to decide as a matter of policy on financing by the corporation or not, which really amounts to selection according to need and necessity. The Departments of Planning and the Environment and of Community Development, which are involved in the group areas aspect, have been fully consulted about the matter and are in agreement with the addition made to the corporation’s Act of foundation in clause 2 of the Bill. It also implements the Government’s acceptance of recommendations nos. 26(a) and (b) of the Theron Commission with regard to the area served by the corporation.

Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill contain no new principles and are meant to eliminate shortcomings identified in the administration in the course of time. As far as clause 3 is concerned, we have already laid down by regulation a few matters which the corporation is obliged to submit to the Minister for a decision. Although consultation about other important matters takes place from time to time, such actions are not legally enforceable, and since the corporation is to a large extent autonomous in terms of its Act of foundation, my opinions on a matter are not necessarily binding upon the board of directors, although as the Minister I am after all the person who can be called to account for the corporation’s activities. Obviously it is not my intention to detract from the corporation’s autonomy in any way or to interfere with its normal administration and decisions, but it may happen that I have to discuss a matter with the corporation first on my own initiative, and then I must have the power to do so.

As far as the administration of the corporation is concerned, it is proposed that as far as possible, parity be brought about with the IDC, which, as far as legal provision is concerned, provided the blueprint—with some adaptations, of course—for the establishment of the CDC in 1962. In the Act of foundation of the latter, provision is made at the moment for the appointment of either a managing director or a general manager as the top official of the corporation, but there is a need to employ them both at the same time, in fact, to be able to appoint more than one general manager. Because of circumstances peculiar to the corporation, it has had to get along since its inception with just one general manager at the head of the administration, but it will not be possible to continue with this outdated arrangement much longer. Therefore the expansion of management requested by the corporation is based on the one hand on the attainment of parity with other State-established corporations and, on the other hand, on the fact that the scope of the corporation’s activities has increased to such an extent that it has become a matter of some urgency to provide for these appointments, since the corporation functions according to normal business principles and the proposed structure is in line with the prevailing practice in commerce.

Overall control of the organization on a daily basis by a managing director, i.e. from a position of authority, while a number of general managers concentrate on the various facets of the corporation’s activities, is an arrangement which, from the viewpoint of control and efficiency, has quite a number of practical advantages which the constantly growing corporation will not be able to do without for much longer. After the analogy of section 11 of the Industrial Development Act, 1940, provision is therefore being made in clause 4 of this Bill for the appointments required.

May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that I shall move an amendment to clause 4 of the Bill tomorrow. The amendment is in respect of section 13(3) and deals with the provision that a managing director may be removed from office. The amendment provides for the words “after consultation with the board” to be replaced by the words “on the recommendation of the board” in order to bring that provision into line with the appointment of a managing director.

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned, a regulation has already been made laying down a short list of matters to be submitted to the Minister for his decision by the corporation. However, regulating matters in this way is largely impractical, because it means that the regulation has to be amended by the State President every time it is deemed necessary to make even the smallest change or addition to the list. Depending on the subject, too, a single submission to the Minister may be all that is required. For this reason, clause 3 of the Bill extends the scope of the matters which can be made subject to submission, while the corporation may of its own violation submit matters of any nature to the Minister for a decision if the corporation hesitates to take a decision about them itself, as often happens in practice.

The need for specifying a list by regulation therefore falls away with the passing of this Bill, as does the need for a reference to the Minister in the enabling clause, as provided in clause 5. After the passing of clause 3, therefore, this regulation will be superfluous and can be deleted, and I shall be able, in terms of the provisions of clause 3, to make requests administratively concerning matters which I wish to have submitted to me.

Mr. Speaker, in my reply to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister I want to confine myself to the substantive content of the Bill and then I want to talk about the background factors which gave rise to the amending Bill.

If we look at the substantive content, it is clear that the Bill amends sections 3, 4, 9, 13 and 22 of the principal Act. Clause 1 replaces section 3 and widens the field of activities of the Coloured Development Corporation, as the hon. the Minister indicated. Clause 2 adds a new section 4 to the principal Act and this provides that the Coloured Development Corporation can extend its activities, with the prior approval of the Minister, to any land or premises lawfully occupied by a Coloured person. In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to put one or two questions to the hon. the Minister. The first is why it is essential to obtain the Minister’s prior approval. As I see the matter, the Coloured Development Corporation is able to judge for itself in which areas expansion can take place and what the requirements in that regard are.

The second question I want to ask in this connection arises from a problem which has presented itself to me. When one looks at the principal Act, especially at section 1(2)—the definition of the concept of “industry”—one sees that it may be an industry, a mine, or a fishing company, as well as any industry defined as such by the State President. In recommendation 66 of the Theron report, it is recommended that the Coloured farmer in particular should be allowed to purchase land anywhere.

However, the reaction in the White Paper was that the Government did not want to make land accessible to this extent, but that it would be possible to buy adjacent land for the farming industry. In view of the definition of “industry” which I find in section 1(2) and the possibility that there may be an extension of agricultural land, the question which I want to ask is: Would the Coloured Development Corporation be able to play a role in this regard as far as Coloured farming is concerned and can a Coloured farmer depend on financial aid apart from bodies other than the Coloured Development Corporation or the Spes Bona Bank? In this regard I am thinking, for instance, of the Land Bank and assistance which could be rendered to him by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

Clause 3 of the Bill replaces subsection 1(4) of section 9 of the principal Act and adds a new subsection (5) to section 9. Basically this means that the Minister may now require any matter of the Coloured Development Corporation to be submitted to him. During his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister referred to the fact that he was taking these powers, but it is not clear to me precisely why he is doing so. I can understand that the hon. the Minister may learn of certain things that are happening; it may come to his knowledge that some aspects are going wrong, and then he wants to be able to ask for reports in this regard to be submitted to him. I just want to know whether the hon. the Minister could mention one or two examples in this regard. For instance, if there should be an irregularity, I should like to know what type of problem could arise in this regard and why it is so necessary for him to have these powers.

The provisions of clause 4 expand the top management of the Coloured Development Corporation and this is probably due to the diversification of the activities of the Coloured Development Corporation. In this regard I want to tell the hon. the Minister right away that I have taken cognizance of the amendment which he wants to place on the Order Paper and that thêre is no objection to it from our side.

Clause 5 of the Bill is a consequential amendment due to the implications of clause 3, as I see it.

This then is what I consider the substantive content of the Bill. The question which presents itself to me is: What were the background circumstances, factors or considerations which gave rise to the legislation? I think that one may look at two reasons in particular. Firstly, I want to refer to chapter 4 of the report of the Erika Theron Commission, the Commission of Inquiry into Matters Relating to the Coloured Population Group, the chapter which concerns Coloured entrepreneurship. The principal object of the Coloured Development Corporation is to encourage Coloured entrepreneurship in order to assist in the general economic upliftment of this section of our population. In this regard we read on page 62 of the report that various restrictions affect the development of Coloured entrepreneurship. In this way, we have the following in paragraph 4.8 under the heading “Eksteme Beperkings op die Ontwikkeling van Kleurlingondernemerskap” and I think it is important to place this on record—

I must add that in his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister referred to some of the problems and said that with the aid of the legislation before the House he hoped to combat the problems.

However, there is also a second reason which is mentioned in the report and I find this in paragraph 4.7—

In this respect I cannot entirely agree with the hon. the Minister when he alleges that the amending Bill does not frustrate the group areas policy at all. Indeed, it is clear that the recommendations of the Theron Commission—I shall return to this in a moment— referred to this very matter as one of the obstacles to the development of a Coloured entrepreneur class. One of the most important collaborators on the commission, especially as regards the report on the economic position of the Coloured people, Prof. Sampie Terreblanche, wrote a book as a result of his work for the commission, entitled Gemeenskapsarmoede: Perspektief op chroniese armoede in die Kleurlinggemeenskap na aanleiding van die Erika Theron-verslag. Mention is also made in the book of the hampering effect—apart from other policy considerations—of the Group Areas Act on the development of Coloured entrepreneurship. I quote …

Order! All that is relevant here is the establishment of Coloured undertakings in industrial areas. The group areas as such, and seen in a wider perspective, are not relevant here.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk about the Group Areas Act now. I just want to refer to recommendation 26 of the Erika Theron report, which has direct implications for the effect which the Group Areas Act has had on the development of Coloured entrepreneurship. With reference to the Coloured Development Corporation, recommendation 26 reads as follows—

1. (a) die korporasie gemagtig kan word om op te tree in alle ander gebiede as net geproklameerde Kleurling- of nywerheidsgebiede …

This is the definition of group areas—

1. (b) daar voorsiening daarvoor gemaak word dat KOK onder sekere omstandighede wel eiendom in ’n nog nie geproklameerde (Kleurling-) dorpsgebied mag besit;
2. (c) indien die aanbeveling hierbo … aanvaar word, dat die sakedele van stede en dorpe tot onbeheerde gebiede verklaar word waar Kleurlinge ook eiendom mag besit en ’n saak mag bedryf, die korporasie gemagtig word om finansiële steun aan sodanige Kleurlingsakemanne te verleen.

According to the White Paper in which the reaction of the Government to the recommendations of the commission is indicated, the Government accepts recommendations 26(a) and (b) but has a number of objections and qualifications as far as recommendation 26(c) is concerned.

If I understand it correctly, the purpose of the Bill is precisely to expand the field of activity of the Coloured Development Corporation and I see this against the background of the recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission—the hon. the Minister said the same thing—which pointed out that it had a hampering effect. Since it is an improvement in this respect and seeks to eliminate certain stumbling blocks and to allow entrepreneur ship to develop amongst the Coloured population in a more economically viable way, we support the legislation. It is not that I am opposed to it, but I am just trying to give the House an indication of the background circumstances which played a role in it.

In view of the statements which have been made, especially in the chapter of the Erika Theron report which deals with the economic circumstances of the Coloured population group as well as in the work of Prof. Terreblanche concerning community poverty, I want to add that this legislation is a very small drop in the ocean in solving the whole problem concerning the development of the Coloureds in the economic sphere. It may be necessary to do a great deal more in future if we really want to achieve something in this connection. With these few thoughts we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to hear that the Official Opposition is supporting the Bill. It is a surprise to me and therefore I am not going to quarrel with the hon. member for Rondebosch this afternoon. The hon. member wanted to make a bit of a detour into political issues, and of course, we will always give him a hearing on that topic.

They are always making small detours.

The hon. NRP Whip must give me a chance. One day I will talk to him about his political policy in private. He is just a nuisance.

While we listened to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister, we on this side of the House could throw out our chests with pride. I do not want to dwell on this aspect for long, but I do at least want to say that the Coloured Development Corporation is an achievement of the Government. I find it extremely strange that the hon. member for Rondebosch did not tell us this afternoon that he wanted to admit one thing, viz. that over the years since the foundation of the corporation there has been a tremendous number of positive achievements in the interest of and to the advantage of the Coloured population. I want to ask the hon. member for Rondebosch to rise to his feet at some time or other to say he thinks that the CDC has contributed a great deal to the economic development of our Coloured population.

At the beginning of his speech the hon. member put forward a few ideas on the substantive content, as he called it, of the Bill. Amongst other things he asked whether this Bill was also going to deal with the development of the Coloured people in the sphere of agriculture. If the hon. member had studied the Government’s White Paper carefully, he would have realized that the White Paper was a document full of hope, which gave us a fine indication of the Government’s standpoint and plans for the economic development of our Coloured population. We admit that, economically speaking, this population group has been left far behind over the years. However, the days are past when opportunities were not conceded, granted and created for these people. The days have arrived when many people from the Coloured population group have accomplished tremendous economic achievements. They have seized the opportunities which were offered to them by the establishment of the CDC. We are grateful and proud to be able to say—and we find this in the White Paper— that the policy of this development corporation has already made a tremendous contribution to the further evolution, development and stabilization of this community in the economic sphere and will continue to do so in future.

The hon. member for Rondebosch can ask the secretary or the management of the Boland Agricultural Union or the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet what happens these days in the discussions between the representatives of the CDC and the management of the Agricultural Union concerning the establishment aid, advice and guidance which is given to the farming group of the Coloured population. Discussions take place on a regular basis. Technical aid, advice and opportunities are being offered to these people—we find this in the White Paper too.

I should just like to return briefly to what the hon. member for Rondebosch said in his speech. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will allow me to say just a few words about the Group Areas Act to which the hon. member for Rondebosch made a sidelong reference.

Order! I did not allow the hon. member to refer to that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If one looks at the long-term planning which is provided for in the Bill as well as in the principal Act, one sees very clearly that that long-term planning would not have been possible if there had been no Group Areas Act.

I am pleased that the hon. the Minister mentioned the pride with which we look back at the achievements of these corporations. We are grateful to be able to say that this corporation will play an ever greater role in the economic development and growth of our Coloured businessmen in future. I am privileged to know many Coloured businessmen in my constituency and elsewhere. I am proud to see how these people are making a success of the opportunity with which they are being presented. When I studied the Bill I asked myself whether any changes in principle had been made in it. I am referring to clause 2 of the Bill which amends section 4 of the principal Act. Why is this situation being changed now? Why is there an extension here? When we look at the principal Act, we see that in section 4 all the directives are given and all the tasks of the Coloured Development Corporation are stipulated. The 15 general powers of the corporation are listed in section 4 of the principal Act. This goes up to 4(o) and just after that— I simply marked it 4(p)—we find the following words—

What we are doing now is to define that last phrase in section 4 of the principal Act finally and clearly by saying that now the Coloured Development Corporation may also grant assistance to Coloured people who live in areas which have not yet been proclaimed, but are about to be proclaimed.

Therefore, when we agree with the hon. the Minister that the measure is a modernization and that it eliminates bottlenecks, that it is also a striving on the part of the corporation for greater success in its primary task, we welcome this Bill.

I referred to one aspect which I should like to repeat. I think there are two bottlenecks which are being eliminated by the Bill. Firstly, when this legislation comes into force, the board of the Development Corporation will now be able to carry out its activities not only in recognized Coloured industrial areas, but also in areas which have not yet been proclaimed but will in fact be proclaimed. Now the Coloured businessman can therefore do business in areas which have not yet been proclaimed, while he still has to wait because a delay may occur somewhere. The hon. the Minister rightly referred to this. Secondly, we often have to deal with controlled areas, as are referred to in section 19 of the Group Areas Act. It may happen that a Coloured businessman does business in such a controlled area. He does business there because it is a general trading area. He has a permit to do business in that area, but he has never yet been able to qualify for assistance. He has never been able to obtain assistance from the Coloured Development Corporation to undertake developments where his business is by means of funds and with the assistance and guidance of the corporation. As I see the matter, a Coloured businessman of this kind is also being granted aid. This is something which we are very grateful for.

When I read the Bill, especially the provisions which deal with the relationship of the Minister to the board—and now I am referring to the principal Act as well as to the Bill—I was concerned at first and wondered whether we were not taking too many powers away from the board and granting too many powers to the Minister. This was something which worried me. We are often accused— particularly by our political opponents—of placing all power in the hands of Ministers and no longer giving the ordinary businessman the opportunity to be an entrepreneur himself, in his ideas as well.

However, I listened carefully to the hon. the Minister’s speech. I consulted the principal Act and I have been reassured. I am grateful that I can say that, although there are already people here and there who have been whispering it amongst themselves that the hon. the Minister is really arrogating autocratic powers to himself, now, we on this side of the House—and I am delighted that the hon. member for Rondebosch also agrees with us—are quite satisfied that there is nothing which can give rise to the hon. the Minister being accused of arrogating all the powers to himself and turning the board into a mere rubber stamp. I say this with gratitude, and that is why it is a privilege for me to thank the hon. the Minister too, for the way in which this Bill will expand the scope of the existing legislation. We take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches intend to support the Second Reading of this Bill because we believe it is a step forward in partly implementing recommendations of the Erika Theron Commission. We also believe it is important that industrial and business areas should be uncontrolled areas and, indeed, unproclaimed areas and that the Coloured Development Corporation should have the authority to act in those areas. That is why we particularly welcome those aspects of the Bill. However, we are somewhat concerned about the position in terms of clause 2 where only with the approval of the Minister may certain steps be taken. We believe that this requires greater clarification from the hon. the Minister as we believe that the corporation, and particularly the board, who are responsible people, consisting of some 13 directors, should have the full confidence of the hon. Minister in the actions that they do take.

Clause 3 of the Bill also gives us some concern. We are not fully satisfied, as the hon. member for Worcester has indicated that he is. He had a degree of concern with regard to the further powers which are to be extended to the Minister, but he feels that the hon. the Minister has met, to a certain degree, his fears. We in these benches are not satisfied with the hon. the Minister’s explanation in introducing the Second Reading that it is really necessary for him to have these additional powers. Subsection (4) of section 9 of the principal Act, which is now proposed to be substituted, states—

1. (a) The board may in its discretion submit any matter to the Minister for his decision, and the Minister shall give his decision thereon after consultation with the board.
2. (b) Any decision so given shall for all purposes be deemed to be a decision of the board.

In terms of the amendment before the House it is the Minister who will now require the board to submit to him for decision any matter relating to powers of the corporation, and we realize these are very wide powers which the corporation already has. The power will now be given to the Minister to require these matters to be submitted to him. Then, in terms of paragraph (b) of clause 3, which inserts a new subsection (5), the board will be compelled to implement a decision that might be so taken by the Minister. In other words, they will then carry the responsibility of implementing a decision that has been made by the Minister. To us this appears to smack of a lack of confidence in the ability and in the wisdom of the board in coming to certain decisions. The hon. the Minister is taking additional powers and, as I have said, we are not yet satisfied that the hon. the Minister in fact requires these powers. The hon. the Minister has not given us any clear indication as to why he wishes to take these powers.

If one looks at other legislation it becomes obvious that there is no similar provision in other Acts, apart from the legislation in respect of the Bantu Development Corporation. Let us look at an Act which this hon. House passed last year, i.e. the Indian Industrial Development Corporation Act, No. 50 of 1977. In terms of that Act the Minister of Economic Affairs has certain powers. An amendment was accepted in the House that the directors would consist of at least 50% of the Indian community, but there does not seem to be any provision in that legislation in terms of which the Minister may refer matters to the board and then come to a decision and then ask the board, and indeed instruct the board, to carry out his decision. That is why we would like to know why it is necessary for this hon. Minister to seek these powers when it would appear that as far as other legislation is concerned it has not been deemed necessary to seek such powers. We believe, too, that the board is a competent board. We understand that of the 13 members of the board there are two Coloured people, and perhaps the hon. Minister could give some indication when replying to the debate what is to be the future policy in respect of the corporation to ensure that the Coloured community themselves will play a greater role in the administration of this corporation. The hon. the Minister indicated that there is one reason why he asked for the provision relating to the approval of the Minister to be included in clause 2, viz. that there were certain decisions of policy that have to be taken and that he as the responsible Minister must take those decisions. However, it is hoped that the hon. the Minister will indicate when he replies to the debate the reasons why he requires this additional power and whether he intends in any way to amend the structure of that board so as to give a greater authority to the Coloured community which this corporation is serving.

We in these benches support the Second Reading as we believe it is an improvement on the existing position. It is an extension of certain powers as far as unproclaimed areas are concerned, but at the same time we are concerned about the fact that in terms of clause 3 of the Bill the Minister is taking additional powers, and we should like to hear some further justification.

Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the Official Opposition and, if I may say so, the NRP, is both welcome and surprising. Hon. members will remember that last year …

You are kidding!

… we had a very heated debate with the introduction of the Indian Development Corporation Bill. It was opposed by both the NRP and the Official Opposition. In fact, in that debate it was referred to, by some Opposition members, as an apartheid measure. That particular Bill was opposed at Second Reading and at Third Reading. That is why this change of heart on the part of the Official Opposition is a most welcome feature of these proceedings.

The Coloured Development Corporation has done pioneer work in that it has helped finance some of its own projects. At the same time it has also helped finance projects by Coloured people, some of which might otherwise never have seen the light of day. I had the opportunity of discussing this Bill with a member of the CRC and he told me that the Coloured Development Corporation has done wonders amongst the Coloured people in that it has allowed them to have a vital stake in the economy and to play a very effective part in developing their own interests and their stake in the South African economy, allowing them to become owners within the framework of this economy. That member of the CRC did, however, have one request which he asked me to put to the hon. the Minister. I shall therefore now put this request to the hon. the Minister. He said that even though the Coloured Development Corporation is doing all this wonderful work, it is limited by its financial structure. He asked me to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that more money is made available to the Coloured Development Corporation so that it may continue to expand its activities. Clause 1 of this Bill does make provision for an extension of the scope of activities, and the hon. the Minister is now ensuring that further good work will be done by the Coloured Development Corporation. Therefore, in order to realize those functions of the Coloured Development Corporation, the hon. the Minister should approach his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, to have substantially more funds made available so that the Coloured Development Corporation’s functions can be extended.

Is the fellow whom you are talking about related to him?

Let me also mention that the Coloured Development Corporation started up in 1962, as hon. members know, with a capital investment of R½ million. The report dated 30 September 1976 indicates that the capital investment has increased to R34 million. This legislation opens up further opportunities for the Coloured people to prosper, and I want to make it clear that as we understand the legislation, there is nothing whatsoever precluding a Coloured person from borrowing from any bank or any other institution in South Africa, including building societies or the IDC. That point was actually raised by the hon. member for Rondebosch. The way we see it, the Coloureds and Indians in South Africa are entitled to borrow from any institution whatsoever in South Africa. This in no way precludes them from that right. In fact, as we see the activities of the corporation, this Bill actually enhances the position of the Coloured people because it gives them an additional right that we as White people do not have. It gives them the right to borrow from an additional source of funds. Those funds are available to them and they make good use of them. That is why I say that in addition to the normal funding for business enterprises, they have an additional source of funds.

In the light of those circumstances, we welcome this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support which the legislation enjoys from all the parties in this House. Of course, it is completely in keeping with the progress which the CDC has made, in the sense that just as there were originally Coloured people who were venomously opposed to the corporation and its activities, there were also political parties in the House who wanted to shoot the corporation down. Gradually, however, the corporation proved itself. Apart from the fact that all the political parties in the House support the expansion in the sphere of service of the corporation, there are also Coloured people who testify to the good work which the corporation does. The hon. member for Walmer also mentioned a member of the CRC who referred with praise to the good work of the corporation. A while ago we also saw, during the course of a television programme, a prominent member of the CRC, a member of the Labour Party, paying great tribute to the work of the corporation.

I have reason today, on behalf of all the parties in this House—let us forget what they said before—and on behalf of the Coloured community, to express the greatest thanks and appreciation of this House to the board of directors and the staff of the Corporation for the miracles which they have accomplished over the past years. [Interjections.] The activities of the corporation have snowballed, if I may use this term. Entrepreneurship was set in motion and that entrepreneurship gave rise to new entrepreneurship. The hon. member for Walmer correctly pointed out that the corporation did pioneering work in this sphere. I want to add that the corporation is now acting as the generator of entrepreneurship in the Coloured community.

The hon. member made a plea for more funds to be made available. The hon. member himself knows in what times we are now living, but if things improve, the corporation will definitely be given more assistance. I just want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that as the corporation’s activities have expanded, it has now become a creator of capital. Capital is now being accumulated as a result of the corporation’s activities. In reply to a question I said the other day, that the bad debts of the corporation amounted to only about R6 000 last year. Once again, this is an indication of the good care which the directorate of the mother corporation bestows on the activities of the corporation and its subsidiaries. New capital is being generated in the process and it is enabling more Coloureds to enter the business or industrial world.

The hon. members for Rondebosch and Umbilo put certain questions to me. They wanted to know, inter alia, why the provision in clause 2 is necessary, stipulating that there has to be prior consultation with me before entering an area which is not in a Coloured area or an industrial area. The answer is very simple. Firstly, there is a relationship of continual consultation between myself and the directorate. A month ago, the directorate consulted me of their own accord on a proposition which they were able to initiate and which would have meant that hundreds of Coloureds who would possibly have lost their employment, would remain in employment. This is the relationship which exists between us. However, if a new area is being entered which has not been accessible to the corporation until now, but which is in fact being made accessible to the corporation as a result of this legislation, there may be circumstances which will cause the corporation to deem it wise to make further inquiries. I am the one who will come under fire in the end if certain things should happen. Suppose a Coloured person applies to operate a business in terms of section 19 of the Group Areas Act. According to the White Paper on the Erika Theron Commission it is now possible for a Coloured person to make this request, and in terms of the legislation which we are dealing with now, it is possible for the corporation to assist him. The bench fellow of the hon. member, the hon. member for Hillbrow, is also a businessman as far as I know.

He is not a businessman; he is a lawyer.

Now, in terms of section 19, a Coloured person may start a business next to him which will compete directly with his business. If the Coloured person is financed by means of a loan from the corporation which has a low interest rate, it is only human that the hon. member’s bench-fellow will complain about it. I hope the hon. member sees my point. I must be able to intervene in a case like this to ensure that unfair competition does not take place. While we want to encourage the Coloured entrepreneur so that he will also have opportunities and encourage him by means of fair loans which the corporation makes available, we want to prevent unfair competition taking place against an existing business of the same type.

The hon. member for Rondebosch also asked what the reason for clause 3 was, which provides that I can ask the board of directors to submit certain matters to me. The hon. member for Umbilo asked more or less the same question. The answer is simply to bring it in line with the legislation pertaining to other corporations. One of the hon. members referred to the Indian Corporation, but this is not a comparable corporation because it is exclusively an industrial corporation. If the hon. member looks at the provisions of the Act relating to the promotion of economic development of the Bantu homelands he will see that those provisions were worded in the same way. The hon. member will realize that the law advisors want to bring about uniformity in the legislation on corporations. That is why this provision is being introduced.

The hon. member for Umbilo asked me about the composition of the board. At the moment, the board consists of 11 White members and two Coloured members and it is doing excellent work. I have the greatest respect for every member of that directorate and for the officials of the corporation. They are dedicated people. The board’s term of office expires at the end of April. The hon. member for Umbilo will have to exercise a little patience, but I nevertheless think that I can tell him today that I intend appointing more Coloured members to the directorate. It is right that this should be done. However, the hon. member will also agree that one can only do this as the knowledgeable and experienced businessmen becomes available. However, I think that they are in fact such people. That is why we will continue to appoint more Coloured members to the directorate.

Mr. Speaker, just before you admonished the hon. member for Rondebosch to confine himself to the Bill, he was referring to the findings of the Theron Commission, specifically on the hampering of entrepreneurship. He also referred, inter alia, to the so-called poor planning of Coloured residential areas. I agree with him that there was poor planning in this sphere in the past. However, I want to tell the hon. member that we must have appreciation for the CDC because they are on the point of giving new substance and new life to the large Coloured residential areas and of developing the nuclei of those areas by means of business undertakings. It is one of the virtues radiating from the activities of the corporation that they develop new entrepreneurship.

The hon. member also referred to the Group Areas Act. I think that that Act is often quoted in order to give members an opportunity to speak about these matters in a rather emotional manner. In terms of that Act, Coloured entrepreneurs who, as the hon. member for Walmer also pointed out, can obtain assistance from various bodies, including this one, at fair rates, are in fact being protected in the Coloured group areas so that they can get going without cut-throat competition from others who have more experience in the business world.

The hon. member also asked, in connection with the Government’s standpoint in the White Paper on agricultural land for Coloured people, what role the corporation can play in this regard. My reply to this is that the corporation does not have a role to play in this sphere. Of course, I shall have to look at this matter if a request to this effect is made. However, I can tell the hon. member that requests like this have already been addressed to the corporation and that of their own accord they indicated that this is beyond their sphere. Therefore, I do not even have to tell them what to say. The hon. member must not, however, hold this up as discrimination against prospective or existing Coloured farmers, because in actual fact the Coloured farmer is being favoured. It is true that there are not many of them at present who are standing on their own feet, but they are being favoured in this respect that they can make unrestricted use of the facilities of the Land-bank, and the Landbank specializes in agricultural financing. Apart from that, legislation was passed a few years ago by the CRC which made provision for assistance to Coloured farmers. If the hon. member were to look at the budget of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, he would see that approximately R0,5 million was voted in this regard last year, if my memory serves me correctly. A special body was established to control those funds, and in terms of that legislation, Coloured farmers can also apply for assistance. In other words, ample provision is also being made for the Coloured farmer. In farming, which is not an industry or a business undertaking, provision has therefore been made for the Coloured people too.

Then I want to thank the hon. member for Worcester who spoke about the task of the corporation with a great deal of understanding. I think that, in the support which the House gave to this Bill today, I can perceive the gratitude and appreciation which the House extended to the directors and staff of the CDC.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

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

During the Second Reading debate I mentioned that the nursing profession itself requested this amendment. The motivation is that what is proposed in the amendment, is customary in other countries, especially European countries, and that the local nursing profession should like to fall in with the present practice in other countries of the world. I should like to call on the hon. the Minister—the amendment is of a technical nature because it is related to the terminology used in the legislation—to consider this favourably and accept it since this request specifically comes from the nursing profession.

Mr. Chairman, I have a little problem with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston and that concerns the English interpretation of the word “verpleegster”. As I understand the Afrikaans language—I am not an Afrikaansspeaking person and I may therefore be wrong—the word “verpleegster” means a female nurse.

However, a “verpleger” or “verpleer” is a male nurse. By substituting the words “ingeskrewe verpleegster” are we not placing ourselves in the interesting situation where we are becoming woman’s libbers, or man’s libbers, because we are not including male nurses in this honourable profession? Surely, I am correct in saying that a “verpleegster” is “’n vroumens”?

How do you know?

Mr. Chairman, I am merely asking.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. member’s problem and I also understand the problem of the profession. It is true that the profession made a request in this regard. However, it is also true that we have to deal here with a legal problem because it is a matter of terminology. Obviously, where one has to do with two languages in one’s legislation, one cannot allow a lack of uniformity merely for the sake of sentiment. If the hon. member looks at his amendment, he will notice that he failed to move a similar amendment with regard to “pupil nurse”. Actually these two concepts go together because the pupil nurse becomes an enrolled nurse on obtaining his or her qualification. In my opinion the hon. member for Umhlanga had a point when he referred to the concept “verpleer” and “verpleegster”. I think the predominant idea in this case—and that is why they suggested the concept “verpleegkundige”—was the status of the profession. The use of the concept “verpleegkundige” causes less confusion among men and women. This is really an aspect which is not always borne in mind. We must, however, find an acceptable translation for the word “verpleegkundige” and not for the word “verpleegster”. The council wants to afford a higher status to the profession and therefore the concept “verpleegkundige” was suggested. In order to invite reaction, both “verpleegster” and “verpleegkundige” were used in the draft Bill which was published on 19 October. In English, however, there is only one term, viz. “nurse”.

What about “male nurse”?

We must try to maintain uniformity, and whereas the term “verpleegkundige” indicates the status, it is infact the words “enrol” and “register” which do that in the English text. In Afrikaans it is the word “verpleegkundige”. It is true that the presidents of the Nursing Council, if they had a choice, would not like to see a non-registered person being called a “verpleegkundige”. We had no option, however, because on the basis of legal advice and due to the necessity for uniformity, we have to abide by this provision, and consequently it was decided to use the term “verpleegkundige” and in that way to maintain uniformity throughout the legislation. This is the reason, and therefore I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 5:

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

1. (1) On page 7, in lines 63 and 64, to omit “or registered in terms of” and to substitute:

   or enrolled in terms of the Chiropractors Act, 1971 (Act No. 76 of 1971), or the Homeopaths, Naturopaths, Osteopaths and Herbalists Act, 1974 (Act No. 52 of 1974), or registered in terms of the Pharmacy Act, 1974 (Act No. 53 of 1974), or

2. (2) on page 11, in line 23, to omit “paragraph (a) of that subsection” and to substitute “subsection (1)”.

In the first place, it is an amendment of clause 5(1)(a)(ii). With this amendment I wish to emphasize and make it very clear that the idea here is to appoint two laymen. In the clause it is not specified that there are also other health professions, like chiropractors, homeopaths, etc. Therefore the clause is amended to state beyond any doubt that the persons appointed are laymen and do not serve in health professions.

With regard to the amendment of clause 5(5), it is provided there that the Minister can appoint members in terms of the provisions of several subsections of clause 5, but in this case there is obviously a mistake in the provision of the principal Act, because it is only stated that he can appoint these people in terms of the provisions of clause 5(1)(a). This therefore merely constitutes rectification of a mistake.

This, then, is briefly what my two amendments are about.

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

1. (1) On page 9, in line 23, to omit “officer” and to substitute “educationist”;
2. (2) on page 9, in line 35, after “citizens” to insert:

The first amendment is once again a specific request from the nursing profession. I have already motivated it during the Second Reading debate. The reason for this amendment is that the nursing profession should like to see appointed in the council a person with a particular knowledge and experience of all aspects of education, who will thus be able to advise the council on matters of that nature. To make sure that such a person must be an educationist and not just an administrative official, I should like to see that the term used in the legislation should be “educationist” and not “officer”. I should like to address an appeal to the hon. the Minister. Since this is a specific request from the nursing profession I can see no reason why the hon. the Minister cannot accept this recommendation and consequent technical amendment of the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, dealing firstly with the amendment of the hon. the Minister, I wonder whether I can draw his attention to the actual wording as it appears on the Order Paper, namely—

We find no fault with the amendment, but I am wondering whether the correct words are used there and whether it is not the intention of the hon. the Minister to omit the words “or enrolled in terms of”. It is a small point, but I think this should be clarified.

Secondly, in regard to the amendments of the hon. member for Bryanston, I would like to say that we in these benches do not have any particular desire to support the hon. member’s amendment to omit “officer” and to substitute it with “educationist”. The Bill makes provision for the representation of specialists if the Minister should so wish and, particularly if one bears in mind that clause 5(f) provides that the Minister will appoint this officer “after consultation with the Minister of National Education”, it seems likely that the person who is appointed could well be an educationist in any case.

As regards the hon. member’s second amendment, we see no special need for a particular section of the nursing profession to be represented in this way. If one wanted to make reference to specific sections one could also ask for representations of psychiatric nurses or theatre sisters. Consequently we will not necessarily be supporting the amendments moved by the hon. member for Bryanston.

Mr. Chairman, I move the further amendment—

I have already sent a copy of this amendment to the hon. the Minister. This amendment concerns the election of three Blacks to the South African Nursing Council. In this regard there is a specific problem. It concerns the announcement by the hon. Minister of Plural Relations and Development a few days ago. The hon. Minister announced that when the Government’s policy will have been carried out there will be no Black people in South Africa with South African citizenship. Clause 5(h) provides for the inclusion of three registered Black nurses in the South African Nursing Council but in view of this policy statement of the hon. Minister it is clear that the stage will be reached when no Black will be able to serve on the council because there is also a requirement that a member of the board should be a South African citizen. In order to eliminate this problem, clause 5(h) will have to be amended. I want to put it forcefully to the hon. the Minister that the practical effect of this provision that the three Blacks in the South African Nursing Council must also be South African citizens, is that when the Government’s policy has been fully implemented, it will be impossible for a Black nurse to serve on that council.

They will not be able to serve on that council, although there will be thousands of Black nurses who received their training in South Africa and who have served as nurses in South Africa all their lives. The aim of this provision in the legislation will then, ironically enough, be frustrated by the effect of the Government’s policy, und the only way in which that embarrassing consequence can be eliminated is to accept my amendment.

Finally, I just wish to refer to my third amendment, which is printed as the second amendment on the Order Paper. This amendment concerns local authorities. The hon. Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, has already said that he cannot accept my arguments in this regard. I wish to put it forcefully once again that the local authorities in South Africa and the nurses employed by these local authorities to provide specific health services to the public, are fully entitled to be represented on this council. The hon. Minister said that they could be represented through other channels. That is not really the case. In terms of the provisions of this legislation, nurses working in hospitals and in other capacities are represented on the council, but nurses working for local authorities and providing specific health services are not. The services rendered by these nurses, are very important. I have pointed out that the aim of the work of nurses working for local authorities, is to keep people out of hospital, in contrast to other nurses who attend to people in hospital. Because these people fulfil a specific and important duty which differs from other matters, we have the responsibility of seeing to it that they are represented on the South African Nursing Council. They are fully entitled to have that. I think it is in the interests of the activities of the council and the aims of the health services as a whole that they be represented.

Mr. Chairman, by means of his first amendment, the hon. member wishes to substitute the word “educationist” for “official”. I follow his arguments and I understand what he has in mind and also what the profession has in mind with this request. The Department of National Education should help us to find somebody with the required knowledge and the thought of an educationist inevitably crops up when one thinks of such a representative. The word “educationist” is however too vague and there are so many categories of educationists that we are bound to have problems if the hon. member’s amendment is accepted as it is. I believe this is a matter which we will have to settle administratively. Since however I am still not certain as to whether we can effect an improvement with regard to this law, I think I shall have to look into the matter again, and if necessary, I shall have a change made in the Other Place, that is to say, if the hon. member feels very strongly about the matter. I believe, however, that we can settle this matter administratively. At this point we are ad idem, namely that we should all like to bring about an improvement. We should like to see that those serving as members for that specific purpose should be fully utilized.

Furthermore I want to refer to the remark by the hon. member for Bryanston. According to the advice I obtained, there is no duplication. If he were to look at the Afrikaans and the English, he will notice that the matter is clearly covered by the words “geregistreer of ingeskryf” and “registered or enrolled”. At this stage I cannot therefore accept the amendment moved by the hon. member as it stands. However, I intend to look into the matter, because I believe he has a point.

His second amendment concerns the citizens of homelands who were formerly South African citizens. I can understand very well that he made use of debates which took place in the last week. In his arguments he put forward the theory that in the course of time there will be no Black person who will be able to serve on the council of 10 elected members. That is quite correct. As counterargument, however, I should like to state that this is not the law of the Medes and the Persians. If there were no Blacks who were citizens of South Africa, how could we elect them? We should then have to elect other people.

I do not want to carry the argument too far, however. At the moment there are still so many Blacks who are citizens of South Africa. When, one day, we reach the stage at which there are no Black South African citizens, we shall have to change the Act. This however can only be done by Parliament. I think he also had Transkei and Bophuthatswana in mind. I noticed however that his argument was aimed at the fact that later on there will be no Black South African citizens. There are provisions in Bantu legislation to the effect that these Blacks will not lose certain privileges which they enjoy in South Africa, by accepting citizenship of an independent homeland. I cannot however accept that a foreign country should be able to appoint or elect people to serve on a statutory council here. That will certainly not be permitted by any independent country. I think the hon. member should also try to see my problem. In this case, therefore, I cannot budge.

The final amendment, too, is unfortunately unacceptable to me. Registered nurses working for local authorities are fully entitled to be elected, depending on their competence and the support they enjoy in their profession, and they are also suitable to be elected. The whole idea here is to establish a capable council. One would think that when nurses elect people to represent them, they will elect capable people and not people representing interest groups. Capable people should serve on such a body. The council cannot represent interest groups, because then it would carry the seed of its own destruction. I cannot therefore allow a category of people comprising an interest group to be elected, because a situation may develop in which psychiatric nurses, midwives or theatre nurses could also start demanding representation. However, I understand the motivation behind the hon. member’s argument. I am particularly impressed by the fact that the hon. member throughout all the debates has the interests of local authorities at heart. There is nothing, however, to prevent local authorities from getting their full share in this instance, provided the people employed by them show themselves to be sufficiently capable so that their own voters are persuaded that they are suitable to serve as council members. The task of the Minister is to create a balance so that capable nurses working for local authorities can serve in this council. The same goes for other councils. When I am convinced that an hon. member is doing his best to be of aid, it is not easy for me to tell him that I cannot accept this amendment of his either, because I could then immediately have problems with other councils as well. I regret that I must say that to him, however. The council is empowered to appoint committees. Should the council be of the opinion that certain interest groups should receive more attention, nothing would prevent it from appointing a committee consisting of nurses employed by local authorities, for example. These are matters which can be settled in that way if certain of the groups do not receive the attention they are entitled to.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister the point raised by the hon. member for Berea. He did not suggest that there was a duplication. I think we must examine this more closely. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to his amendment and I want him to compare it with the English translation in the Bill. The hon. the Minister’s amendment reads quite clearly—

Line 63 of the English translation of the Bill reads “or enrolled in terms of this Act”. If, in effect, the proposed amendment in the English text were to stand, it would mean that from line 62 it would read—

However, what I am sure the hon. the Minister means to say is—

We submit that this is perhaps a misprint in the English text and we ask the hon. the Minister to look at it and to rectify it.

Mr. Chairman, I can have a look at it. If it is only a technical matter, a matter of words that the hon. member wants to put right, we can have a look at it and rectify the matter in the Other Place. But, as far as I can make out in this short space of time, my amendment is correct. I have specifically stated here “or enrolled in terms of the Chiropractors Act … or registered in terms of the Pharmacy Act.” This is how my amendment on the Order Paper reads.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, I ask the hon. the Minister to read that with the Bill and he will see what we are getting at.

Amendments moved by the Minister of Health agreed to.

Amendments moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10:

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

Here we are in fact dealing with the delegation of powers by the council to the executive committee. As the clause reads at present, it is provided that all the powers of the council may, under certain circumstances, be exercised by the committee, but it is felt that there are certain powers which should not be delegated to the committee in this way. Such a power is the power to terminate any suspension and, on payment of the prescribed money, restore the name of the suspended person to the roll or register. There are similar provisions in other legislation and also in clause 11(5) of this Bill. The council feels that when it comes to suspension and discipline and matters of this nature, the decision should rest with the council and that the powers cannot be delegated. Only when it is in the public interest as in the case of dependence-forming substances, may the powers be delegated, but not otherwise.

Mr. Chairman, I am considerably more obliging than the hon. the Minister. Therefore we on this side of the House shall support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we in these benches shall also support the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 11:

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

1. (1) On page 15, in line 22, to omit “disciplinary” and to substitute “investigation”;
2. (2) on page 15, after line 28, to insert:
   1. (ii) establish trial committees, each consisting of so many persons, appointed by the council, as the council may determine, but including at least two members of the council, who shall be the chairman and vice-chairman of such committee, to hear any complaint, charge or allegation referred to in section 28(1) and thereafter to report to the council.

The purpose of these two amendments is the following. It is a legal tradition which has stood the test of time that when a person is charged with a contravention, the same body of persons undertaking the investigation, shall not sit as a disciplinary committee or as a tribunal to decide on the innocence or guilt of the person so charged. What I am suggesting here, is that this sound legal principle should also be incorporated in this legislation.

In order to do this, I suggest that two committees be established to investigate contraventions and to decide on them. In the first place provision must be made for an investigatory committee, which will be charged with the investigation of any allegations against a member of the council in respect of any offences which have been committed. That investigatory committee, after completing an investigation, must report to the council. If the matter has to be taken further and a person has to appear before a disciplinary committee, there should then be an entirely different committee. Although it is not mentioned in the amendment, the aim is that the disciplinary committee should not consist of the same people as the investigatory committee, but that the disciplinary committee should be a completely different committee before which the accused will appear and will have the opportunity to defend himself or herself. The important aspect of the two amendments is to comply with the requirements of that legal principle that the investigation and the trial of an accused should be dealt with by two completely different committees, or tribunals or groups of people, so that justice can fully be done to the accused person and that it should also be seen that justice is done to that person. Another very important point is that no suspicion should be cast on the committee, i.e. that these two separate committees should be completely above suspicion in respect of their impartiality in the trial of a person.

Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member, I am of course always mindful of the legal principle of the separation of powers. This ought to be so, but in this case what he is aiming at, will be achieved and is being achieved. One is in reality dealing with two committees. The one is the full council and the other is the committee that is conducting the actual investigation. The hon. member wants the word “discipline” to be deleted, but the profession itself has asked for the word “discipline” to be used in the case of the persons who are charged and investigated. If one investigates a man for murder, one investigates him for murder. If one investigates him for theft, one investigates him for theft. The investigating committee which will consist of people as knowledgeable as others sitting in the council, will, as a result of the years of experience of its members, be exactly the same as a court which has to investigate a man and has to listen to evidence to establish whether the man committed a criminal act, and then has to pass judgment on him. This is where the principle comes into play. There it is not a violation of the principle of the separation of powers. It is in fact a continuation of the executive process and the legal process where, in many cases, there is a kind of administrative law where the two do not have to be separated so religiously. But if one looks into this further, one will see that provision is being made in clause 11(3) that the council may appoint any other committees. If the council feels that, in a particular case, provision should be made for a trial committee, it can do so. This is in reality something on which only the council can decide.

What I cannot accept, is that the word “discipline” should be deleted. Secondly, I cannot accept that two committees in the same council, committees consisting of people functioning at the same level and who are professionally and in other respects equal, should be appointed to deal with the various components of what is only a continuation of an executive process, even if it is a judicial executive process. I cannot allow their coming into conflict with one another and our having discord where we have already made provision for cases of discipline, suspension, etc. This is what I have just explained to the hon. member during the discussion on the previous clause. In those cases it is the council that has the final decision, and is a kind of Supreme Court, an appeal court, as it were. Therefore it is not necessary for me, once again, to appoint a trial committee or an investigatory committee in addition to the existing disciplinary committee. This is my view on the matter, and I regret that in this case, too, I am unable to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, from the reply which the hon. the Minister gave me, it is quite clear that he concedes, on the strength of the legislation as it reads at present, that precisely the same committee—the disciplinary committee—will undertake the investigation with regard to every allegation of a suspected contravention, and that the same committee will decide whether the accused is guilty or not, and will report to the council. Therefore it is quite impossible to bring about the separation of the powers of investigation and trial respectively under those circumstances. It simply cannot happen. Nor is it of any avail for the hon. the Minister to point to the fact that provision is made for the other committees. The other committees are there for different purposes. What is important is that specific provision ought to be made in the legislation for two committees. The trial committee can be called a disciplinary committee if the hon. the Minister so wishes. I just do not like the term “disciplinary committee”. I think “trial committee” is a better name.

On the strength of the conclusions at which the investigatory committee arrives, the suspected offender will be called before a trial committee. The important aspect, however, is that such a trial will be completely above suspicion. Those serving on the trial committee will then be able to claim that they are totally impartial to the case being tried. If, however, it is the same committee as the one which conducted the investigation, it can never with justification be said that complete impartiality existed, although it may possibly be the case.

There will, however, always be a trace of suspicion, a suspicion that the committee is not totally impartial.

If the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, he must accept the responsibility that he can bring about this state of affairs—circumstances of suspicion of possible suspicion of the committee—by way of the legislation under discussion with regard to what will be taking place before the aforesaid committee.

Mr. Chairman, it would appear that the PFP is unhappy about the word “disciplinary”, and this might be the motivation for the amendment moved. We in these benches find no problem with the phrasing of the clause for a disciplinary committee which both investigates and hears complaints. This is an established principle of legislation which also relates to other statutory bodies. It is nothing new and we find no quarrel with the wording as it stands. We therefore do not support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bryanston.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to reply briefly to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Bryanston. I do not know where the idea of partiality or impartiality comes from in this case. This council has been functioning in precisely the same way for 50 years. For 50 years the council has had the right to establish other committees. There has never been any trace of suspicion with regard to the council’s partiality or otherwise. The investigation of a case as mentioned here, is nothing but a trial. Evidence is led and eventually a provisional sentence is recommended, precisely as stated in clause 11(3). The council considers the case once again and takes the final decision. In other words, what we have here, is, for all practical purposes, two committees. My respect for the council, the proof that I have of what the council has done over the years and the achievements of the council, compel me to arrive at the conclusion that the acceptance of an amendment such as that which was moved, will reflect on the council. Experience has taught us that the council is 100% fair. As far as the principle of the matter is concerned, I find no fault with the fact that the committee does the work, that it makes recommendations to the council and that the council ultimately takes the decision.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.