, as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on Bantu Affairs.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

, as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the subject of the Deeds Registries Amendment Bill, as follows:

F. HERMAN,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

House of Assembly

29 May 1978.

Proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before the Bill was read for the First Time, copies of the draft Bill and the explanatory notes were made available to certain hon. members on both sides of the House so as to enable them to study the contents. Hon. members will, I am sure, have noticed that the Bill now before the House, differs from that submitted to Parliament in previous years. This Bill contains no schedules whereas in previous years the annual Customs and Excise Amendment Bill consisted mainly of schedules to give effect to amendments of the various rates of duties levied in terms of the principal Act. A different method to give effect to the various amendments is being followed this year and as the reasons for the change have been explained by the Secretary for Customs and Excise to hon. members on both sides of the House, I do not intend to go into this matter any further. I would, however, like to mention that the change in no way detracts from the right of hon. members to discuss the amendments in the rates of duties or to move further amendments in this respect.

The new procedure enabled the Department of Customs and Excise to draft the Bill at a much earlier stage, with the result that the proposed amendments to the text of the principal Act could be submitted to representative bodies of commerce and industry, such as the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Assocom, FCI and Sasafaa for comments. Comments and proposals were received from these bodies, and where practicable such proposals were incorporated in the Bill now before the House.

With the advent of containerization it is now possible that the transit of cargo can overtake the flow of documents with the inevitable delays at the destination whilst the consignee awaits the Bill of Lading or other documents of title from the shipper. For the information of hon. members I may mention that these documents are essential when clearing imported goods for customs purposes. The non-availability of these documents gives rise to a situation where the early clearance of containerized consignments can be delayed.

In order to overcome this problem the existing provision in the Customs and Excise Act must be reviewed, and clause 1 of the Bill therefore provides for the production of a transport document, or such other document in lieu thereof as may be approved by the Secretary for Customs and Excise, instead of a Bill of Lading or other documents of title when goods are cleared for customs purposes.

The Second Customs and Excise Amendment Act, 1977, provided for the acceptance of the Brussels value definition for customs valuation purposes with effect from 1 January 1978. Under the previous customs valuation system importers were required to submit, among others, invoices in the statutory prescribed form and prescribed certificates of value. Under the existing value system these documents are no longer required.

Clauses 1, 2 and 3 provide for the withdrawal of these requirements in sections 39, 40 and 41 of the principal Act.

*Mr. Speaker, clause 4 deals with the introduction of anti-dumping duties with retrospective effect. I want to mention at the outset that objections to this measure were raised, but it is clear to me that not everyone understands the reason for it. During the Second Reading debate on the Second Customs and Excise Amendment Bill last year I explained that the anti-dumping provisions in the Customs and Excise Act were being amended to bring them into line with the provisions in the Agreement on the Implementation of Section VI of GATT, better known as the Anti-dumping Code.

Section 56(1) of the aforesaid Act provides, inter alia, that I, as Minister of Finance, may on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries introduce antidumping duties when I am satisfied that dumping is taking place and that the effect of such dumping will be to cause material injury to an established industry in the Republic or materially retard the establishment of an industry in the Republic.

Hon. members must bear in mind that dumping does not necessarily take place over a long period. It may take place in very large quantities over a short period, while the goods so imported are disposed of over a long period in the local trade, causing material injury to local industries. In such circumstances it is necessary to protect the local industries and this can only be done if an anti-dumping duty is introduced with retrospective effect. At present there is no provision in terms of which I can afford such protection.

I should like to mention that this provision is in all respects a protective measure. It is not in conflict with the Anti-dumping Code either. In this connection I should like to quote from Article 11 of the Code—

1. (a) either that there is a history of dumping which caused material injury or that the importer was, or should have been, aware that the exporter practises dumping and that such dumping would cause material injury; and
2. (b) that the material injury is caused by sporadic dumping (massive dumped imports of a product in a relatively short period) to such an extent that, in order to preclude it recurring, it appears necessary to assess an anti-dumping duty retroactively on those imports,

The proposed amendment makes provision for precisely this contingency, and I trust that there will now be more clarity in regard to this provision.

†Mr. Speaker, during my budget speech earlier this year I announced that the Standing Commission on Tax Policy had recommended that the existing sales duty on certain selected less essential goods subject to relatively high rates be converted into ad valorem excise duties. I also said that I had accepted this recommendation in principle and that I intended implementing it later this year.

In order to cause the least possible disruption it is proposed that the provisions relating to the existing sales duty be made applicable to those goods which will be affected by the implementation of the ad valorem excise duties. Clauses 5 and 6 provide for this eventuality. When provision was made in the Second Customs and Excise Amendment Act, 1977, for the value for sales duty purposes of cut precious and semi-precious stones and jewellery, with effect from 1 October 1977, it was not the intention that the provisions should also apply to imitation jewellery, and it has not been applied. Clause 7 therefore excludes imitation jewellery from the aforementioned provisions with effect from 1 October 1977.

*As far as clause 10 is concerned, I should like to mention that in terms of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, No. 32 of 1944, the civil jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts is limited to an amount of R1 500. In the past it has frequently happened that the Department of Customs and Excise has had to recover amounts in excess of R1 500 from taxpayers with relatively few assets. As a result of the amount being claimed, such a case has to go before the Supreme Court. The costs involved in such proceedings are frequently in excess of the value of the assets of the taxpayers concerned, with the result that it is not worthwhile instituting such proceedings. As a result of this situation considerable amounts of income for the State have already had to be written off.

I want to emphasize that the envisaged amendment of section 95 of the principal Act relates only to civil actions in which the amounts claimed are not in dispute. I therefore want to make it clear that in the case of a dispute between the Department of Customs and Excise and a taxpayer, both parties, as is still the case, may make use of all the legal channels, including the Supreme Court.

Except for the confirmation of the amendments effected in respect of schedules 1 to 7 of the principal Act prior to 27 January 1978, provision is also being made in clause 13, inter alia, for the confirmation of the reduction in the rates of sales duty, the reduction in the rates of excise duty and customs duty on unfortified wine, the reduction of the surcharge and the introduction of an excise duty and customs duty on fermented apple, pear and orange beverages.

Mr. Speaker, may I say, in the first place, that we appreciate the arrangement the hon. the Minister made to acquaint members on this side of the House with the new procedure with regard to the various notices that are published during the year. We also appreciate the fact that he arranged for the Commissioner of Customs and his officials to meet with us in order to deal with this matter. Quite obviously this is something which has expedited the workings of the House, and as far as we are concerned we are grateful to both the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner of Customs for the trouble they have taken. I think I should also say that we approve of the new procedure. It is obviously not only a time-saving mechanism but also a money-saving mechanism as far as Parliament is concerned, and therefore we welcome this approach.

The Bill, as usual, contains a number of provisions covering many fields. May I say right at the outset that, as far as clauses 1, 2 and 3 are concerned, we have no problems at all. They are in accordance with modern practice and I do not propose to waste any more time on them. As far as clause 4 is concerned, the hon. the Minister was quite correct in anticipating the problems which we would raise as a result of it, because there is an inherent objection to anyone having the right retrospectively to impose any form of duty or taxation. We appreciate that antidumping provisions are necessary in our legislation, because local industry has to be protected against the often unscrupulous actions of those who dump goods into a particular country at a particular time. The hon. the Minister will no doubt already have looked at what can be regarded as a bounty and what can be regarded as a subsidy. There are so many disguised methods of endeavouring to overcome the anti-dumping provisions existing in developed countries of the world, particularly the Western world, that I think that the time is going to come when we are going to have to look at what it is intended should be covered by the concept of a bounty or a subsidy. We ourselves have to look fairly carefully at this in the light of the fact that we give export incentives in South Africa, and we do not want to find ourselves in a position where anti-dumping laws could be applied against us because of the export incentives that we give in South Africa. So to that extent this is a very delicate matter, and a very difficult matter to handle, and in this regard we certainly do not want to create more problems either for our export trade or for local industry which has to meet this challenge.

I just want to come back to the fact that our problem is that we have here a retrospective provision. There is already provision in the Act for a provisional charge to be made whilst the whole matter is investigated, and what is interesting is that there is no power to impose that provisional charge retrospectively. It is only the actual anti-dumping duty that can be applied retrospectively. In many cases there may consequently well be quite innocent people who become involved in this. In other words, somebody may import goods which may be receiving a subsidy or a bounty of which he is unaware. The necessary steps could then be taken to bring section 56 into operation, and under those circumstances one might well find innocent people also being hit by this. This is a matter I should like to commend to the hon. the Minister. We do not intend to oppose the provision because we recognize the problems, but we do not necessarily agree that merely because a provision is, in fact, in the anti-dumping code, we should automatically accept it. With respect, that is not the principle on which we work. We rely here upon the fact that the hon. the Minister has a discretion to decide whether to apply this or not to apply it. We therefore hope that when he replies he will tell us that he will certainly make sure that this is not applied when innocent people may be involved and where the retrospective provisions could cause great financial hardship to quite innocent people. So much for clause 4.

Let me now come to clause 5. Here one has the impression—and this is a difficulty we have—that what is really going to happen here is that in some respects sales duty is going to disappear in its guise of sales duty and re-appear in another guise. This is a matter which obviously cannot meet with our approval. Neither do we believe that the provisions for the determination of the basic value are the correct provisions. We therefore want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that we are not happy about this provision in the Bill. Clause 6 is similar to clause 5, the one applying to imported goods and the other to local goods.

Now I come to clause 7 which deals with the question of imitation jewellery. Here again there is a retrospective provision, but this is one which gives rise to a practice which was agreed to, as I understand it, with the trade. So here there is really no question of anybody being prejudiced by it. While we are debating this clause, however, let me draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that we believe that the position of the jewellery trade has not been satisfactorily settled as a whole. There are still many problems in regard to sales duty. On the one hand there are loopholes, and on the other hand injustices which have come about as the result of the new system, and whereas this may not be the occasion to debate this in full, I do want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to this provision, which indirectly affects the jewellery trade, so that he and his department can give further attention to this aspect and have further discussions with the trade in this regard.

Then we come to clause 8. I should just like to say a few words about this. I am not one to encourage the viewpoint that alcoholic beverages should not be taxed. I think that taxation is a legitimate mechanism of the State and, whereas I can understand that individuals should feel strongly about it, I think it is regarded as a legitimate mechanism because in the case of most people there is certainly no compulsion to consume alcohol. It is not an essential to life in the ordinary sense of the word and therefore I am not prepared to get terribly emotional about taxation of alcohol. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think that a new industry related to new beverages to be created from apples, pears and oranges, is something to be encouraged. Industries such as these are in their infancy in the true sense of the word. One can take orange wine as an example. It is an industry in its infancy. Is it then logical that this should immediately become the target of the fiscus? I believe a case can be made out for the manufacture of this kind of beverage to be encouraged so that we can develop an export trade in it. There is not a major market for this overseas at the moment. I know that people trying to market orange wine overseas have not met with a tremendous amount of success at this stage.

However, I believe that these industries should be encouraged whilst in their infancy. The wine industry and the spirits industry have all had their chance and I believe the hon. the Minister might well consider giving a fair chance to the people who are now to a large extent pioneering new beverages from fruit. I do not think that it matters whether those beverages are alcoholic or otherwise. These people are to some extent pioneers in a new field and I should like to plead for them.

Next, I want to turn to clause 9. We support this provision because in our view a person who goes through the green zone at the Customs is, in so doing, in fact making a statement. He is actually telling the Customs people that he has nothing in his possession to declare. Therefore, if he goes through the green zone, it should not be necessary to have to ask him again before an offence will be constituted. Therefore, as far as we are concerned, we shall certainly support this provision.

In this regard I want to direct another plea to the hon. the Minister. At the present moment the value of goods that may be brought in duty-free is R50. To my knowledge—and I am sure the hon. the Minister agrees with me—that has been the amount for as long as he or I can remember. In my view it is quite archaic and quite ridiculous because today one can buy virtually nothing at all for R50. If the hon. the Minister or anyone else were to go overseas to buy a few presents for children and grandchildren, they would find that they could not buy many presents for R50.

“Grandchildren?”

I am not talking about myself, but about that hon. member; I am pleading for him. Quite seriously, I believe the time has come to increase the figure to R100. I think the hon. the Minister would be doing himself and everybody else a service if he were to announce today that he was going to do that. There must be thousands of husbands who want to bring wives presents and thousands of other people who want to bring back presents and who should be given this opportunity. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to make a gesture in that regard.

We also support clause 10, which seeks to amend section 95 of the principal Act. The only difficulty I have in this regard is with something the hon. the Minister said. If I understood him correctly, he said where there was a dispute, it would not go to a magistrate’s court, but one would still take the ordinary course. However, the actual wording of the clause does not restrict it in that fashion. That means one can take any one of these disputes to the magistrate’s court, and I have no objection to that because I think even where matters are in dispute there should be no problem in taking it to the magistrate’s court to save costs for all concerned.

As far as clause 11 is concerned, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he regards the 28-day period as an adequate one. I believe it is somewhat short in the circumstances. It is true that when section 43 is applied, it takes three months before a sale can take place. However, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not consider allowing us to increase the period of 28 days to 60 days in the Committee Stage in order to make this a more equitable provision.

Section 109 of the Act is amended by clause 12 of the Bill. We have a slight problem in this connection, and that is that the section presently provides that if it is necessary in the opinion of the Secretary for the safeguarding of public health, or for the public or the State, he may do certain things. There is already a provision in the Act which provides that no person shall be entitled to any compensation for loss arising out of any bona fide action of the Secretary. Clause 12 now provides that the Secretary may do certain things at the expense and risk of the importer, exporter, owner, master or pilot, etc. It would seem to me that the matter is now taken much beyond a bona fide action.

It would appear to me that where an innocent person is involved in such action and it causes a tremendous amount of harm which is in no way the responsibility of the person who is affected, such person is completely deprived of compensation. Once again I accept that the Secretary would not normally act in a way in which he would wilfully cause harm to anyone, but we are enacting a law in terms of which quite innocent people may be adversely affected as a result of action taken in terms of this clause. It is unfortunately a characteristic of customs legislation, that when one deals with satters of this nature, one has to have fairly tough powers because one is normally dealing with fairly tough cookies, if I may use that term. There are many provisions in customs legislation which one would never have tolerated in any other form of legislation. However, sometimes one has to draw a line.

That deals with what I might call the non-contentious part of the Bill. Now we come to clause 13 which includes an omnibus series of provisions. Included in these is, of course, the sales tax. We want to indicate to the hon. the Minister, so that there is no misunderstanding between us, that as far as we are concerned, we regard the imposition of a general sales tax, which is to follow in another piece of legislation, as double taxation while the sales duty remains on the Statute Book. We regard it as an imposition on the consumer which should not be imposed on the consumer. We regard it as being imposed at a time when South Africa cannot afford to have increased inflation. We regard it as a matter which is unjust in so far as the lower income groups are concerned. I know what the hon. the Minister’s reaction is when I use certain phraseology in this House, but the fact remains that this discriminates unfairly against the lower-income group. This is a perpetuation of that system. We tried to indicate to the hon. the Minister that he should have a tax holiday, a period of time before he imposes a general sales tax to allow the shelves of the people to be cleared during that period. In that way there will not be a double taxation. The truth is that the hon. the Minister said that he is giving certain minor sales duty concessions. He reduced the duty by 5%, and what has happened? The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that there has been exploitation of the public and that the benefits of the 5% reduction has not been passed on. The other day I saw a whole pageful of examples in The Star where the benefits have not been passed on. This has come about as a result of the hon. the Minister’s approach to the matter, in terms of which he wants a double taxation system and in terms of which he does not want a tax holiday which would have enable the shelves to have been cleared. The result is that in these circumstances it is the consumer who suffers and who has to bear the burden. The increasing cost of living is hitting the community and the hon. the Minister knows as well as we do that inflation is one of the greatest dangers in South Africa. If inflation is not kept under control, all the political measures that can be taken in order to create stability in the community, can be made nugatory, because inflation is one of the greatest creators of instability in any community whatsoever. In perpetuating the sales duty the hon. the Minister is contributing towards that instability in South Africa, in the communities in South Africa. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should reconsider the whole issue. Does the hon. the Minister realize that there are endless troubles in regard to the general sales duty? Representations over this matter have been going on for months and there is no doubt that a lot of the problems could be removed if sales duty were abolished. Even though we have no basic objections to the rest of the Bill and even though we obviously support any reduction in sales duty, I want to move an amendment, because while sales duty remains, we regret that we must allow our voices to be heard on this subject. Accordingly I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely amazed that the hon. member for Yeoville, a man with an extensive knowledge and experience of financial circles and our economic life, simply does not want to accept certain principles. There are certain basic responsibilities of the Receiver of Revenue and the Government that the hon. member simply does not want to understand. This year in the House we have discussed taxation for a very long time and in great depth. Earlier this year we also discussed the possibilities of increasing and widening taxation revenue. The widening of the taxation basis is an old question. It has been under discussion in this House many times. In previous debates we indicated in detail—the hon. member for Yeoville cannot dispute the logic of it—that there is only one way for us in South Africa to widen the taxation basis, i.e. by establishing a general sales tax as is being planned at the moment. The Government understands that it is going to make certain demands on the taxpayer. It is true that the Government is taking on the one hand, but it is also true that the Government is giving back a great deal again on the other.

There is one aspect of the hon. member for Yeoville’s argument that I really cannot understand. Does the hon. member want to say here once again that he, as a trained man, is totally ignoring the value of sales duty as a fiscal measure? This is what the hon. member’s argument amounts to. The hon. member wants to do away completely with sales duty levied at the starting point, as a fiscal measure. I simply cannot understand it.

Then the hon. member unfortunately repeated an allegation that he has already raised here in the House quite a few times before. The hon. member once again accused the hon. the Minister of wanting to tax the poorer people in South Africa. Is it not true that where double taxation may occur, it is said very emphatically that it is on the more luxurious items? Is it not also true—the hon. member’s argument in connection with inflation also ignores this—that for every rand that one levies at the starting point of the production cycle, the consumer ultimately pays R1,41? If my arithmetic is correct, this is “inflation” of 41%. It is therefore inflationary to levy taxes at the starting point. Although the hon. the Minister is now going to levy a taxation of 5% at the point of sale he is deducting 5% on certain items that are generally used a great deal by people. At the same time the hon. the Minister is retaining an excise duty on certain more luxurious articles. In other words, leaving out the general sales tax, the hon. the Minister has in effect lost a rand in taxation revenue, while the consumer gains R1,41 for every R1 that the hon. the Minister is no longer going to levy at the starting point. If, in the case of the particular items that I am referring to, R1 is levied at the end instead of at the starting point, the consumer saves 41 cents that he would otzerwise have paid.

We are still waiting for valid arguments from the Opposition to explain to us how they want to restructure the South African taxation system. All we hear is criticism and we have not yet had a single proposal from the hon. member for Yeoville as to how he wants to extend the taxation basis.

He is not even listening!

It is because the hon. member never listens to the arguments of this side of the House that he cannot understand these matters. [Interjections.]

There is another matter that the hon. member for Yeoville mentioned and to which I want to react, i.e. the anti-dumping measure. The hon. member will recall that during 1974-’75, when we both began our term in this House, there was a crisis in the textile industry as a result of colossal dumping of certain cotton goods from the Far East within a very short while. It is logical that by the time such a matter really comes to the attention of the authorities and the relevant boards and organizations look into it, a destructive quantity of those goods may already have found their way into South Africa. If, in a case like this, one does not have the power to make a levy retrospective, one nullifies the powers that one is creating for oneself to try to control such a matter. That is why a discretion is being granted to the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Therefore, if there are cases, as the hon. member said, of innocent people who suffer large financial losses and these people can make out a case for themselves, there is the opportunity for them to appeal to the hon. the Minister and he can accommodate them in such circumstances. Therefore, in this respect too the Bill can also be considered good legislation.

I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s reply is going to be to the hon. member’s argument about the period of 28 days. For me personally it is fairly illogical that while containerization is aimed at transporting freight across the oceans as quickly as possible, the container should have to remain here for 60 days. I cannot understand the logic of it at all, because of course we shall have to establish facilities to safeguard the containers for these people. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is going to consider a concession in this regard, but I feel in any event that one cannot go too far with it.

I feel it is a very technical, but nevertheless a very good piece of legislation that is before the House at the moment. I should like to make a few remarks about certain aspects of it. In my opinion clause 8, which is a concession to exporters, is a very good measure and it also reflects the disposition of the Government to make matters as easy as possible for our exporters, from an administrative and cost point of view.

A final remark I want to make, is that to my mind the legislation is a clear example of the fact that the hon. the Minister and the department are trying to keep pace administratively with the developments that are taking place. These proposed amendments are a reflection of the fact that the Government does not want to cause delays in handling container freight, for instance, due to documentary or administrative considerations.

There are a few other matters on which my hon. colleagues will comment.

I just want to make a very friendly request to the hon. member for Yeoville. During the Committee Stage and the Third Reading debate he will have the opportunity of speaking about the taxation. We on this side of the House now want to ask him to disregard his political convictions as far as this tax is concerned. As a trained economist and someone who has his finger on the financial pulse of the country, he must give us on this side of the House a few convincing arguments as to why this taxation that we want to introduce, is supposedly so poor and why the ideas that he has about tax, are so much better than ours, because I think it is very irresponsible for an hon. member to keep on accusing this side of the House and the hon. the Minister of Finance in particular, of concentrating on the poorer people in our community in applying this new taxation system. I think it is disgraceful to criticize these taxation measures so one-sidedly without also referring to the concessions Government is making in regards to the surcharge on goods, as well as the concessions to those people, for example pensioners, who have a fixed income, and in connection with the new income limits, higher allowances, etc. These are obvious things. These are concessions that must relieve the burden of the poorer people in our community. We should like to hear from him in this regard. If he does not give us the other side of the picture and make positive suggestions, we in South Africa will know that we have an ineffectual Opposition in that respect too.

Mr. Speaker, we shall not support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville. I must confess that I am inclined to agree with the hon. member who has just sat down that it would appear as if the hon. member for Yeoville really is playing politics concerning these taxation proposals and the question of taxing the poor. As I see the situation, the hon. the Minister is making a genuine attempt to move the country away from direct taxation in the direction of indirect taxation. This is of such vital importance to the whole process of investment in the country, the process of capital formation in private hands and the very basis of the whole free enterprise system, that we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill. I think the Minister is trying to achieve an act of balance by means of this particular Bill and the budgeting he is doing in this particular year. He has reduced the sales duty by 5% and imposed a sales tax. The sales tax will be increasingly rewarding to the hon. the Minister, to the point where he will be able to reduce the sales duty more and more, although I cannot see a situation in which the sales duty will be done away with altogether.

I do not know how the hon. the Minister feels about that, but as far as I can see, we shall not reach a situation in which the sales duty will be abandoned altogether. I think we shall have to live with it for a considerable while, if not for ever. However, I do think the emphasis which is now being placed on the sales tax is the right one. If it enables the hon. the Minister, as I think it will, to effect any kind of improvement in our economy and to improve the situation as far as the individual taxpayer is concerned—for years I have been vitally concerned with that—I think he should reduce personal income tax and company tax to a significant degree.

I briefly wish to refer to clause 4. The hon. member for Yeoville dealt with it to quite a considerable extent. Our problem is that it may well be that by the imposition of a retrospective duty it may appear as a punitive action on the part of the department and the hon. the Minister. If a person has bought goods, how does one establish that those goods have been dumped? Is there some definition, and can one identify them immediately? Can the hon. the Minister say to this House that any person buying dumped goods will know they were dumped? That person is therefore deliberately handling those goods and passing them through the commercial life of our country. If he can say that, I have no real objection to his levying a retrospective duty. However, it would appear to me that if a person buys goods and handles them in the course of his normal business, buys them at a reasonable or at a cheap price, adds a profit and then markets them, is to have a further duty imposed on them which may actually result in his handling those goods at a loss, is in my opinion a punitive measure on the part of the department and of the Minister. I do not think that that is part of the normal business practice of South Africa. I would hate to think that we are passing a measure here which would enable the hon. the Minister to take punitive action against people who are handling dumped goods. We can understand that there should be protection for our manufacturing industry. We are all agreed on that. Where there are measures which arise out of international agreement it is fine. But I would like an assurance from the hon. the Minister when he replies to the Second Reading that whatever happens in terms of this clause, it is not going to be used to the point where people are going to suffer a severe financial loss as a result of the power which we are putting in the Minister’s hands. Either that or the hon. the Minister must tell us that it is his intention to use this clause in that way, so that people who handle dumped goods know that they do so at their own risk, because they will then be “zapped” by a duty which will result in financial loss to them to deal in those goods. That is the principal objection which we have to clause 4.

I also wish to deal—as did the hon. member for Yeoville—with excise duty on fermented beverages produced from apples, pears, etc. I do so with particular reference to a White Paper which was produced by the Department of Water Affairs. This White Paper refers to the farmers in the Grabouw area who, at considerable expense to themselves, constructed a dam. They did not wait for the State; they did not ask for a Government subsidy, but incurred considerable expense in order to be able to increase the size of their orchards and to increase their production, the bulk of which is exported and is therefore earning foreign currency for South Africa. The fruit which is unsuitable for export is turned into apple juice, cider, etc. I think the hon. the Minister should recognize what those people have done. They have done what I regard a praiseworthy thing. They have incurred this expenditure on their own in order to expand their production without coming to the State for aid, and they are entitled to a 33⅓ % subsidy on a loan which they could get from the Government. However, they have not done so. They have gone ahead on their own, under their own steam, with what I regard as being one of the best examples of private enterprise and of people getting together and doing their own thing that one can possibly find. I would like to think that the hon. the Minister is going to support and encourage that kind of attitude. I think the excise duty which is to be levied on what is essentially a by-product of their main product, which is export fruit, etc., is unjustified. I therefore intend to move in the Committee Stage that that amount should be deleted from the Bill. I make an urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister in this respect.

The fermented pears, the orange wine, etc., are really curiosities rather than something which is coming into the main liquor trade in South Africa. The hon. the Minister can go and try for himself by asking all the hotels in Cape Town if they keep the orange wine, the fermented pears or this kind of thing. He will find that it is not so. I think we can well afford to recognize what people are doing and to recognize the efforts that are made by farmers to help themselves and not be a burden upon the State or to claim money from the State in this situation.

We shall support the Second Reading of the Bill, but in the Committee Stage I intend to move that the amount of money which the hon. the Minister is proposing to levy on fermented apples, pears and oranges be deleted.

Mr. Speaker, in view of what the hon. member for Mooi River has said about the apple industry, let us please not cause the apple farmers and the wine farmers to be at loggerheads with one another. As far as this matter is concerned, I should just like to refer to two aspects. The hon. member for Yeoville said: “I see no reason why alcoholics should not be taxed”. I do not think the hon. member is correct in stating that every person who drinks a glass of wine, is an alcoholic.

I did not say that.

What then is an alcoholic? [Interjections.] The hon. member did say that.

You are mixed up.

Why are you so sensitive?

Because I am involved in an industry on which the economy of the Western Cape is based. As I understand it, these people have requested that they should be permitted to produce these apple, pear and orange wines. The KWV, which is the mother organization and which has to protect the wine industry, has raised no objection to this. But we should bear in mind that the economy of the Western Cape is dependent to the extent of about 80% on the wine industry. The KWV has made only one stipulation, which is that wines produced from apples, pears and oranges, should be subject to the same excise duties as light wines. I appreciate the nice things the hon. member for Mooi River said about the apple farmers. However, the same also applies to the wine farmers. At least they have farmed without State subsidies for years. They have never received loans from the State, and have even built their own dams and incurred other major expenses.

Since there is a danger of surpluses in the light wine industry, I request that the hon. member for Mooi River should please not oppose this motion by the hon. the Minister. I appeal to him not to do that during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to those who object to the clause on “dumping”. He has referred to those responsible for “dumping”, as “innocent people”. I can quote several instances of dumping to the hon. member which we have already experienced in South Africa. The hon. member for Florida referred to “dumping” in the textile industry. I can also testify to that. In fact there is a textile factory in my constituency which was very hard hit by that. I should like to quote seven instances—instances of which we are perhaps not even aware. I want to do this just to illustrate that “dumping” does take place, and that it is not always simply innocent people who are involved. If a person is indeed innocent, he is always free to appear before the Board of Trade and Industries and to state his case there. He will be afforded the opportunity to do so.

Firstly, I quote the instance of unmotorized bicycles. These are articles which were dumped in South Africa at one stage. Then there was also the dumping of mechanized reciprocating pumps.

What about ballet shoes?

Oh, please. The hon. member for Pinelands should write another letter to his city council objecting to Black people walking through the streets of Pine-lands. I cannot understand why he refers so frequently to something which is long past. [Interjections.] The Board of Trade and Industries has stated that factors such as the fragmentation of the motor vehicle market, and imports at disrupting prices, were making the economic production of motor vehicles in South Africa impossible.

What about Worcester sauce? [Interjections.]

The third instance I wish to refer to, was the increase in the duties on textiles. The application for that increase was before the Board of Trade and Industry. The board stated, inter alia, that in order to ensure that the textile industry maintained its position in commerce, certain procedures had been laid down. Furthermore, I refer to the manufacturing of forklift trucks. Once again there was overproduction of these machines in Europe and they were dumped in South Africa. In connection with this matter, I want to read out the following quotation—

In conclusion, I want to refer to yet another instance of dumping. It concerns the production of liquid sodium hydroxide, or caustic soda. This is a minor commodity, and yet it was imported—and in such volumes that action became essential. That was another case of dumping.

I think the hon. member for Yeoville should concede that dumping can do serious harm to certain industries in South Africa.

The words “customs and excise” always make me think of peach brandy and of people who try to do the State out of something. Remarkable and resourceful methods were utilized in the past to distil peach brandy. Although this legislation is of a technical nature, it also makes provision for putting a stop to irregularities which may take place in our country, on our borders, and, for example, at airports. It is being done to ensure that our country and our trade and industry will not be harmed.

I should also like to say something in connection with purchase tax. I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville again said this afternoon that we are taxing the poor. I think it is correct to state that 6% of our population is responsible for 80% of the direct tax which is paid. It is an acknowledged fact that sales duty is being imposed on luxury articles, and it may be possible to phase out that sales duty gradually, but we have a vast programme of expenditure in this country. We are a developing country. We are building an infrastructure. We are engaged in the establishment of tremendous industries, which cost money. Everybody in the country—whether they be White, Brown or Black, and whatever their income may be—ought to make a contribution towards making this country economically viable so that it will have a sound economy and be able to do what it would like to do and that, of course, also includes the objective of giving all the people in this country a place in the sun. With that, I pledge my support as well to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Worcester and other hon. members on the Government side believe that the sales duty, the surcharge and the general sales tax must all be applied simultaneously. We believe that the general sales tax can only be introduced if, at the same time, you dispense with the sales duty and the surcharge. We believe that the general sales tax will yield sufficient finance to improve the quality of life of all South Africans. Thus, we would welcome this tax if it were introduced on its own. However, we cannot support the implementation of three taxes simultaneously. In the circumstances we shall support the amendment introduced by the Official Opposition, but I want to say immediately that we do not regard the general sales tax as an exclusive tax on the poor. I do not believe that the spirit in which the general sales tax will be applied will be such as to justify the hon. member for Yeoville’s statement that it is an exclusive tax on the poor. I shall deal with the matter further during the course of the other remarks I want to make.

*We want to express our gratitude to the officialdom for the help and information they have given us with regard to this legislation. We also appreciate the fact that the officials will be saving the taxpayers approximately R20 000 this year as a result of the new methods which are provided for in this Bill.

†I understand that the bill of lading is as old as the Customs Act itself, and with the advent of containerization the goods often move faster than the documents do. In the circumstances we obviously welcome this new form of documentation being introduced in terms of this Bill.

This Bill also seeks to prevent the dumping of goods in South Africa by overseas firms. It seeks to protect South African industry. The Board of Trade makes a recommendation to the Minister on each case, and both sides have the right to have their cases put before the board. Anti-dumping measures are internationally accepted as a practice laid down by GATT. In fact, GATT calls this the antidumping code, and we welcome this protection being afforded our industries, especially in these days of unemployment. There are, however, certain matters which we hope the board and the hon. the Minister will bear in mind. In the first place, they must be careful not to protect inefficiency in South African industry, because this could well happen. So we should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in that regard. This must not be seen as a method to protect inefficiency in South African industry. Secondly, allowing these imports introduces a competitive element and keeps our own industries on their toes. Thirdly, the cost of living is an important factor in arriving at a decision. Fourthly, where there are near monopolistic situations in South Africa, competition should be welcomed to reduce the cost of goods. Lastly, I think the hon. the Minister must always be careful in applying retrospectivity because undue hardships can be caused to innocent people, though I assume that the hon. the Minister will apply retrospectivity in such a manner that innocent people will not be hurt.

Clauses 5 and 6 deal with sales duty on less essential goods being converted into ad valorem excise duties. The hon. the Minister is also given the right, in terms of the law, to determine the value of the goods. I should consequently like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Does this mean that the value of the goods or the tax is going to go up or down? Is there going to be an increase or a decrease under this new method by which the hon. the Minister is entitled to value the goods?

The motor industry pays sales duty of 7½% on small cars and approximately 15% on bigger cars. On a small portion of imported components the motor industry pays a surcharge of something like 12½%. The Port Elizabeth complex is very heavily dependent on the motor industry, and the hon. the Minister can see the pleasing results in the last few months since he announced the concessions, but these pleasing results are probably also due to the fact that buyers want to purchase their motor vehicles before the general sales tax is introduced later this year. The motor industry is a key industry and is extremely sensitive, and it is therefore vital that the hon. the Minister should give this industry a square deal. The hon. the Minister is aware of the unemployment situation, and therefore I cannot accept that he will seek to continue with the sales duty and the surcharge once the general sales tax becomes effective. This, of course, does not only affect the motor industry. It affects other industries as well. However, as far as the motor industry, in particular, is concerned, and also other industries in general, I want to make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister to use the power that he has, in terms of the law, to ensure maximum employment by abolishing the sales duty and the surcharge as of the date on which the general sales tax becomes effective so that only one tax is applicable. I fully realize that to prevent speculation the hon. the Minister probably cannot disclose his intentions now, but I would appreciate it if he could at least tell us that this plea of ours has not fallen on deaf ears.

According to Prof. Nic Swart the Government is using the motor industry as a source of tax revenue. He said that last year motor manufacturers paid R105 million into the State coffers in the form of customs and excise duties and sales tax. He estimates that phase 5 duty scales plus general sales tax would bring the State R164,8 million by 1980, a leap of 57%. According to the article, if sales tax on cars were abolished, the proportion of the 1 500 kg vehicles retail price going to the State will curve up from 17,25% this year to 23,7% in 1980. Should sales tax stay, the increase would be 35%. So obviously the hon. the Minister cannot think of retaining sales tax under the present circumstances.

To come to another matter, there are concessions to encourage exports, concessions in the form of drawbacks and rebates. Anything that will increase our exports or export promotions will have our backing, and we believe that this provision will have that effect. I understand that the Brussels’ definition of value contained in last year’s Bill was put into physical operation on 1 April 1978, and from all the reports I had, that method is working well. I have not heard many complaints against it.

In conclusion, whilst I am prepared to predict a change in the sales tax and the surcharge once the general sales tax is introduced, because my prediction could be wrong, we have no alternative but to oppose this Bill at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I must say quite frankly that we are rather disappointed with the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Walmer here this afternoon. He said he would support the amendment by the hon. member for Yeoville, but for other reasons than those advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. What ultimately counts with people when they see who supported this amendment, will not be the reasons advanced, but the mere fact of support. It is not a good reflection on the party of the hon. member for Walmer that he does not support this.

I think the hon. member and also the hon. member for Yeoville and his party are overlooking one aspect in respect of sales duty and general sales tax entirely, I want to ask the hon. members whether they want us in South Africa to allow that luxury items, from the tax point of view, to be sold freely. I do not think we want that. Luxury articles should continue to be controlled. I think the hon. member for Yeoville will agree with me that if we want to keep on exercising control over the sale of luxury articles, there is no other method we can apply than to levy a sales duty at the starting-point, as the hon. the Minister is indeed doing. It is also an indisputable fact. If we abolish the sales duty at the starting-point, as the hon. member for Yeoville has suggested this afternoon, we shall then have to find the revenue which we derived from that source elsewhere. We shall have to find it, inter alia, by levying the general sales tax. In other words, then the people who are now really having a hard time, are going to pay even more. But if we tax luxury articles, only the man who can afford to do so, pays this higher tax. I therefore think it is unfair on the part of the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Walmer to say that we should abolish the sales duty at the starting-point.

I think we should even take this matter a little further with the hon. member for Yeoville. My colleague, the hon. member for Florida, has asked him whether he prefers not to have the general sales tax introduced. We are still waiting for his motivated reply to that. If one says it should be abolished, or that it should not be introduced at all, one should also provide an alternative. However, the hon. member has not come forward with an alternative. We also note with displeasure the statement the hon. member made that we were taxing the poor doubly.

That is irresponsible.

Yes, it is irresponsible. What does the hon. member want to accomplish by that? To whom, precisely, is he referring? He refers to Black people and Brown people in South Africa as the people who are poorer than the Whites. He says that the Government is imposing double taxes on the poor. I think that in the times in which we are living, it is irresponsible to bruit this type of thing abroad. What are the facts now? The hon. the Minister is not simply taking money away from the people; as my hon. colleague has also pointed out, there is a reduction of 5% in the rates which are subject to sales duty. What is more, there is a reduction from 15% to 12½% in respect of the rate of surcharge. In talking about these things, one should put them in perspective. One should not simply make the statement he is taxing the poor man doubly. If we look at this matter objectively, we can only come to the conclusion that the hon. member for Yeoville is acting irresponsibly when he bruits this type of statement abroad.

This Bill contains technical provisions which eliminate certain anomalies in respect of existing measures. Apart from that, there are also important provisions in respect of the streamlining of existing statutory provisions. I can refer to a number of these clauses in terms of which, for example it will be easier for our people to import goods and to have them cleared. The hon. member for Worcester, and also other hon. members, have referred to the question of dumping. That is also a question for which provision is being made in the Bill. The hon. member for Yeoville has a problem with this, too, for he evidently has an objection to the provision in the clause that the Minister may make it this with retrospective effect. Evidently he cannot understand that the preliminary levy cannot also be made with retrospective effect. As I see the matter, the hon. the Minister will be able, when there is evidence of something like that, to impose a preliminary levy until such time as the Board of Trade and Industries has investigated the matter. After they have made their recommendation and the final levy has been fixed, he may make such a levy with retrospective effect for a period of up to three months. I think it is only fair that the preliminary levy need not be made with retrospective effect. It is only when a matter has finally been disposed of that the hon. the Minister will have the authority to make it retrospective for a period of three months. In addition I do not share the hon. member’s concern about innocent people who will be affected by this matter. We shall not discriminate against innocent people and against people who have suffered harm as a result of this provision or let them suffer because the provision is with retrospective effect.

There is a further very important provision in clause 8, which is directed at promoting exports. What it amounts to, is that there may now be a refund of excise duty on imported components or raw materials, and that the Secretary may refund this money to people even in a case where locally manufactured goods or raw materials of a comparable category or quality has been used in the place of the imported component or raw material in the manufacturing of the article exported. I think this concession could constitute considerable financial benefits to our exporters, and one therefore notes it with appreciation.

In terms of section 81 of the Act a person who arrives, inter alia, at the airports with undeclared or prohibited goods and is caught with them in his possession must specifically be asked whether he has those goods in his possession. Only then has he committed an offence. The amendment which is being effected is intended to facilitate the onus of proof for the State, because such non-declaration already constitutes an offence now. I think that in certain circumstances, this is fair and we can therefore gladly support this. I could also refer to other amendments, but other hon. members have already mentioned them. The hon. the Minister is rectifying and tightening up existing measures to adapt to modern circumstances in South Africa. We therefore support this measure gladly.

Mr. Speaker, I think it would simplify the debate if we were to avoid misunderstanding each other on certain issues. When the hon. member for Yeoville spoke when he introduced his amendment he did not say that he was opposed to the concept of a general sales tax. He said he was opposed to the imposition of a sales tax on top of a sales duty. He said he was opposed to double taxation and that is precisely what his amendment provides for. His amendment states that while the present Bill gives some relief by reducing the rate of sales duty, it maintains the system which together with the general sales tax will result in double taxation on consumers already suffering from high rates of inflation. To say that is very different from saying that we are opposed to the imposition of a general sales tax. We recognize that the general sales tax will introduce certain benefits and certain simplifications in the tax system of this country. The purpose of this amendment is not to change our point of view on this but to point to certain areas within which the impact of the general sales tax could be reduced especially in the case of people who are hard hit by inflation. I would recommend to hon. members firstly a study very recently conducted by Assocom on the impact of the sales tax on the poor. In this study they show, on the basis of calculations relating to the cost of living and the budgets of families of various levels of income, that the people who are going to suffer most and the people who are going to pay the most tax, relatively speaking, if sales tax is imposed, will be those families with incomes of less than R6 000 per year.

People with incomes of more than R6 000 a year will in fact enjoy a tax benefit in that the reduction they hope to receive in regard to their personal income tax will be a greater reduction than the increase they will pay in respect of the general sales tax. This is a serious calculation undertaken by a serious organization. We, as Official Opposition, are therefore rightly concerned about the possible impact of a general sales tax which does not allow for these factors and which is imposed on commodities which causes it to bear hard on the lower-income groups as against the high-income groups. That is what we are saying, and I honestly believe that the hon. member for Florida would not have made his attack on the hon. member for Yeoville if he had clearly heard and if he had understood what the hon. member for Yeoville was saying.

An article which appeared in Tegniek this week, deals with the question of inflation, which is also an aspect mentioned in the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. In an examination they show how Switzerland has escaped the major impact of the recession and how they have succeeded in maintaining the lowest rate of inflation in the world. In examining the special case of Switzerland, they point out that it is a country no bigger than Lesotho. It has a population which is a bit bigger, but it is not one of the large populations of the world. The very powerful economy of this small country is maintained by virtue of the productivity of its people. Then, most importantly, they mention the factor that Switzerland has been prepared to levy very low rates of excise or tax on goods entering Switzerland. Having a strong currency as it does, it is able to purchase abroad at very favourable prices, at the minimum extra cost to the imported article, thereby assisting in the maintenance of low prices in Switzerland. I mention this merely in passing, but it does relate to the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville and to the rather ureasonable criticisms that were made of it. That then is the most important matter of debate during the Second Reading of the Bill. There are, however, one or two other matters that I would like to touch on very briefly.

Clause 4 of the Bill is the dumping provision, and we entirely agree as to the necessity of protecting South African production against the effects of foreign dumping. One is bound to say that dumping very often is in the eye of the beholder. What the foreigner does to us is very often dumping while what we do to the foreigner, is export incentive. It therefore depends from which end of the telescope one is looking at this particular topic. I believe that there is perhaps cause, although it has to some extent been defined by GATT regulations, for defining more clearly what we mean by dumping. For instance, I have in mind a practice which is confined not only to a particular Government department, but also to publishers in this country, i.e. the placing of orders for the publication of books in Spain. It is known, or believe, that in Spain the Spanish Government subsidizes printing so that there is a tendency or inducement for people to place their printing orders in Spain. This practice relates to goods which do not necessarily cross our frontiers. It is possible to send a manuscript to Spain, to have it printed there and to have it distributed from Spain to other European countries. This is in effect a kind of dumping in that, by a subsidy of a particular Government, people here are induced not to use the local industry, but rather to employ the foreign industry for the production of goods. I am not an expert on the fine print of the GATT agreement. I believe, however, as far as I am aware, that this kind of dumping is not covered by the normal dumping provisions which apply.

Clause 5 deals with the conversion of the existing sales duty into an ad valorem excise duty. Like the hon. member for Walmer, I am doubtful whether this conversation would in fact add to the total tax paid or whether it will reduce it. The explanatory memorandum does refer to the relatively high rates of existing sales duty on certain less essential goods. One would therefore hope that the conversion to an ad valorem rate would in fact reduce the actual cost to the consumer in South Africa, and we would be grateful to hear from the hon. the Minister whether this is his intention.

I should now like to refer to clause 9. I believe that in the case of clearance of goods through customs, there is in the minds of importers a certain degree of uncertainty as to what they are allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do. I would entirely agree that the passage of a person through the green channel is in effect a declaration in regard to the goods that he has with him, and that if he makes such a silent declaration that he has nothing dutiable in his possession and he is found, on inspection, to have such goods, he is in fact guilty of an offence. We go along with this entirely. However, I think the kind of advice that one receives on an aircraft returning to South Africa or in the case of foreign visitors coming to South Africa, is sometimes not as clear as it might be. It tends to be an unfamiliar procedure to most people. On entering most other countries one is not subjected to the same kind of documentary advice. In America and South Africa one is, but in a very few other countries is this the case. I think Britain is another country where one gets some advice in advance. However, if one is faced with the moral choice of going through either the green or the red channel, and one is a conscientious person, one wants to know what precisely one is opting to do. I believe it is most important to give clear guidance to people who are being asked to make this decision as to whether they want to go through one channel as a non-dutiable person or through another channel as a person who is carrying dutiable goods.

Lastly, I should like to support the plea of the hon. member for Yeoville to have a look at the R50 limit. The ordinary family man after a trip abroad of four to six weeks, does have some small obligation to his family when he comes back. If he should be a husband with a wife, two or three grown-up daughters and a son, this obligation can hardly amply be covered within R50. I believe a little bit more generosity might be shown by the hon. the Minister. He might take the declining purchasing power of the rand abroad into consideration. Also, I believe it might lead to more honesty in customs declaration and less trouble for our courts.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to be rather brief in my reply to this Second Reading debate because, as I understand it, various arguments and proposals will be raised again during the Committee Stage. Then there will of course be an opportunity to deal with those arguments specifically. If I should reply to them in detail now, there will be a lot of repetition then.

In the first place I want to thank hon. members who participated in the debate, for their contributions. I found it an interesting discussion. I want to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for the appreciation he expressed for the way in which the department introduced the new system. The hon. members may perhaps find it interesting to know that we have saved at least R20 000 in printing costs alone, by following the present system. It was worthwhile, and I do not think the value of the documents which have been submitted, have been detrimentally affected in any way.

I want to say something about the antidumping measure, for it was discussed at some length. I also want to refer to the clause which provides for the change-over from sales duty to excise duty in the case of the more luxury articles.

†As far as the anti-dumping provision is concerned, it must be remembered that any action which is taken by the Minister—the Minister has, of course, discretion in this regard—must be taken on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries. I think this is an important point to remember. This board is our most expert body in these matters. I see many reports of the board; in fact, I see reports of their’s every week, and I am extremely impressed by the quality of work which comes from them.

I find it very difficult, if not impossible, to imagine that the Board of Trade and Industries would recommend taking action under this anti-dumping code against a particular practise unless there is very clear proof that it is seriously harming industry in this country and is in fact a serious matter. I can indeed say that that is in any case the view the department has always taken. I do not think we from our side are likely to depart from that approach. There is that very clear safeguard in practise which we will certainly always bear in mind. As far as the conversion of sales duty into overall excise duty on certain selected luxury type of articles is concerned, I have been asked by the hon. member for Walmer—the hon. member for Constantia also touched upon it—whether this will be an upward or a downward adjustment. Hon. members must exercise a little bit more patience. The hon. member said with his tongue in his cheek that this might lead to all sorts of speculation. He must have a little patience. We shall see what happens. However, I think the principle is a good one, because we want to impose that duty on these luxury items, as we call them. As I have said in my budget speech—and I repeat it now— we want to get rid of the sales duty. The hon. member for Yeoville says we are engaged in double taxation, viz. that we now have a sales duty and are likely to have a general sales tax. But the fact is that this is something which will take place in a sort of a bridging or a transition period. However, we certainly hope to get rid of the sales duty eventually, except where we are converting the sales duty into excise duty on certain selected luxury items. We are doing this in terms of a very positive recommendation of the Standing Commission on Tax Policy. I shall come back to this point because an amendment in this regard has been moved.

As far as the jewellery trade is concerned, it is so that from time to time there are problems in practice. However, there is a jewellers’ council, with which the Secretary of Customs and Excise is in constant touch. They regularly discuss problems and he certainly does his best to resolve them wherever he can. I am aware of the fact that from time to time problems do arise.

As far as the fermented or fortified beverages are concerned, the hon. member for Mooi River must remember that although this industry might still be on a relatively small scale, it is in principle in direct competition with the wine industry. As a matter of fact, we received representations from the wine industry.

*The hon. member for Worcester is quite right when he says that the wine industry is a very important industry. All we have to do as far as taxation is concerned, is not to discriminate in favour of one to the detriment of the other. This is what we are trying to do here. [Interjections.] Yes, one should not allow unfair competition, especially if it arises out of the implementation of a taxation policy, for then it can be a very serious matter. This is all we are trying to achieve here.

†I might just say to the hon. member for Mooi River that if these beverages are exported no duty would be payable on them provided that they are exported from a licensed customs and excise warehouse. So there is at least that particular point to bear in mind.

Do you envisage an export market for these products?

No, but such a market can be built up. As a matter of fact, it is well worth going to see some of the plants that are producing fruit juices, and there has been a tremendous increase in the exports. I can imagine that the fermented juice could possibly be very popular in the course of time.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised the question of whether 28 days were adequate in terms of clause 11, the clause relating to goods lying around on a Controller’s premises. We say that after 28 days the Secretary or the Controller should have the right to remove those goods to a State warehouse. It must be remembered that those goods have already been entered. We therefore find it difficult to understand why they should be left lying around for long periods on a Controller’s premises where they are very inconvenient, particularly in the case of containerization where it could become a serious problem. That is the main reason for that proposal. Goods which have already been entered for customs duty purposes should be moved after 28 days.

The hon. member for Yeoville also raised a question under clause 12. It concerns the onus, as it were, for bona fide action by the Secretary in respect of goods which might have been washed ashore or where he takes action for health reasons, etc. For example, dangerous materials may be washed off a ship and be washed up along the coast. The captain or master of the ship is instructed to get rid of those goods because they constitute a danger, but he says he forfeits the whole thing. He intends leaving the goods there and the South African authorities can do what they like. In terms of the provisions of this clause the Secretary for Customs and Excise will have a certain discretion to tell that particular party, if he can identify the party, to find the ship or to find the agents, that they have an obligation to help with the removal of the dangerous goods. That is one practical case which could arise and which could cause this to be rational approach.

At this stage I should like to refer to sales duty and the new general sales tax and comment upon the point that it could involve double taxation where both are imposed. The fact is, of course, that we did immediately reduce sales duty by 5% and, secondly, as I said before and say again, we certainly want to continue with the process of reducing sales duty as the new tax gets under way. I think all hon. members will appreciate that when a comprehensive new tax is introduced one has to see that it is carefully and thoroughly introduced and that it is working. When it is working, obviously one can make certain other adjustments. The whole reason for introducing this broad based low-rated tax is to have a tax for once in this country—so many other countries have had it for a long time—which does in fact have a broad base. Then one can make certain reforms in respect of the tax structure as a whole. One reform would undoubtedly be to phase down the present sales duties beyond the 5% we have already done. It is all very well to say that we should do this at once, but we have to provide a record amount for defence. Four years ago, the defence budget was R600 million. Today it is R1 600 million. The State is providing a record amount for housing, particularly for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. A record amount is being provided for education, again particularly for these important national groups. A record amount is being provided for pensions and related benefits, benefits which the document I tabled with the budget makes clear, on a much bigger scale than ever before. Social benefits and all these things are at record levels and at the same time we are living in a difficult world. The world is still in a serious recession. One only has to see what the IMF and the OECD have said in their latest reports issued from Mexico City during their latest conference and the gloomy view they take. It is in that world that we have to live and work and earn our revenues. So we obviously have to be careful and prudent with these things. However, I can assure hon. members that it is not our intention to maintain in being any one particular tax, such as the sales duty, longer than we absolutely have to have it. I think the hon. member for Mooi River made a very important remark when he referred to the effect of more indirect and less direct taxation and the desirability for that in South Africa, as well as the effect of that move to relatively more indirect taxation on the formation of capital. It is a point which is often overlooked, but one which is, I think, extremely basic to the situation in this country as well.

I think I have covered most of the points …

Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would deal with the issue of the increase from R50 to R100 in the duty allowance for travellers?

As a matter of fact, I was just getting to that. The Secretary for Customs and Excise discussed this with me again only this morning. The department feels that although R50 has been the figure for quite a long time, they are rather reluctant to change it, because they say it compares fairly well with the position in most countries overseas.

In the United States it is $500!

Well, it varies. In some cases it is very close to our own figure. We can look into this further. I am not dogmatic myself. We can look at it again and decide whether it should be R50, R75 or R100. I am not the best arbiter on that, so I would be led by the customs officials with long experience. In the light of the remarks by the hon. member for Yeoville, however, I will go into the matter again. We can then see whether a better case can be made out for it than I can make out now. I will certainly see to it that further attention is given to this matter.

*Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to leave the matter at that. During the Committee Stage we can discuss certain matters in greater detail.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—109: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bartlett, G. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, P. S.; Miller, R. B.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Pyper, P. A.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raw, W. V.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Wood, N. B.; Worral, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—19: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.; Wiley, J. W. E.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, in view of the undertaking given by the hon. the Minister, during the Second Reading debate, to re-examine the provision in clause 9 about the permissible amount to be brought in duty free, we are dropping our objections and our arguments against this clause and will allow its passage.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the hon. member for Yeoville, who apologizes for having to be absent due to his attendance in a Select Committee, I should like to move two amendments to clause 13. Firstly, I move as an amendment—

1. (1) On page 9, in line 56, after “Act” to insert:

The effect of this amendment will be to remove the sales duty in cases where the sales tax will apply, thereby to avoid double taxation. I further move as an amendment—

1. (2) On page 9, in line 56, after “Act” to insert:

Mr. Chairman, as indicated at Second Reading I wish to move as an amendment—

As I have indicated, this has the effect of deleting the excise levy on apples, pears and oranges used in fermented beverages. There is a point I should like to make in this connection. The hon. member for Worcester appeared to be upset about what he considers my trying to involve two sections of the farming community in a confrontation over their products, etc. I want to make it quite clear that I intend nothing of the sort at all. The preparing of fermented beverages from these three types of fruit is an infant industry, and I cannot see how this activity could in any way be compared with the wine industry, which is a mighty industry in South Africa. It has been long established and it is well established. It has outlets overseas. It has everything organized and sorted out and it is in fact a very powerful lobby in Government circles in South Africa, irrespective of the party in power. I really fail to see how the hon. the Minister can say that he is now bringing these activities of apple fanners, pear farmers and orange farmers into line by applying the same sort of excise duty to their products as he does to the wine industry. I really and honestly believe that for the reasons I have given they deserve some consideration. They should be encouraged in what they are doing—I refer now particularly to the farmers in the Grabouw area. Through their activities they have spared the Government considerable expense. I really and honestly think the hon. the Minister could afford in this case to make some concession, even if only for a period of a few years, to allow these people to get off the ground and get this industry going.

The hon. the Minister spoke of an export industry, but I cannot see apple cider being exported from South Africa on any particular scale. We used to import a certain amount from Great Britain at one time, but today one can hardly buy it at any hotel anywhere in South Africa. The fact is that a little bit is now being supplied in South Africa by our own local industry. Whether one likes apple cider or not depends on whether one approves of it or not. I think that in these circumstances the hon. the Minister can afford to be generous to these people and that is why I have moved my amendment. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to regard this as a serious attempt to help these people to get an industry going which, I think, is from their point of view essentially a side-show. As they used to say in Somerset, cider was made from apples that fell to the ground and had little “wigglywigglies” in them. These people are using apples they cannot export. They are actually creating a market for fruit which otherwise might not be marketable.

Mr. Chairman, as I have already stated in my reply to the Second Reading debate, I have problems with the two amendments moved by the hon. member for Constantia as well as the amendment by the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member for Constantia wants to do away with sales duty as a whole as well as with the surcharge of 12½%, in one fell swoop. We should note that the effect of that would be on State revenue. In the case of the surcharge alone, it means that we will have to lose R350 million during the present financial year. How can we afford to make the country militarily prepared, and how can we afford all the other expenditures which we regard as so important? There is, inter alia, also the expenditure on the establishment of our infrastructure. My colleague, the hon. the Minister of Transport, requires capital. I could not supply him with all the capital he asked for. That is our problem. It is a practical problem.

†I said all along that the surcharge is a temporary measure. It has been adjusted downwards by 2½% and we hope that as time goes by we will be able to continue to adjust it downwards and eventually phase it out. Exactly the same applies to the sales duty. We would hope to phase that out in good time as well. We would then be left with the general sales tax, income tax, company tax and customs and excise duties as our most important taxes. That is the position. I should also like to say that my information is that the immediate abolition of the existing sales duty would cause a serious disruption in the retail trade. From a fiscal point of view, as I have said, I cannot see how I could possibly afford to abolish it in any case. That in short is the answer to the hon. member for Constantia on those two points.

The hon. member also talked about double taxation. I think one must be very careful when one says that a particular cause of action is necessarily going to add to inflation. What do we have? We are going to introduce a general sales tax of 4%. We have already reduced the surcharge on imports by 2,5%. We have already reduced sales duty at all the various levels by 5%, and we have said that we wanted to go further with both of those as soon as we are in a position to do so from a revenue point of view. In this financial year we have also given considerable concessions on personal income tax and company tax. In a full year these concessions would, if one puts the two together, amount to fully R200 million. In addition to that we will, if the budget proposals are finally accepted by the House, have provided a further R20 million as a sort of special subsidy to help to relieve the effects of the general sales tax on certain basic foodstuffs. If one adds all these concessions together it is to me a moot point whether one is adding to the inflation or not. After all, what are all these businesses that can do so—I do not say everyone can—going to do, what is the entrepreneur in general going to do when he is faced with this new tax? He is going to look at his efficiency immediately. One sees that when one comes for instance with an increased excise duty. The industry is affected and they immediately go into the whole position of their cost efficiency, managerial efficiency, labour efficiency and they try to economize. This will happen again, and I am not able to agree that one can state by way of a general conclusion that one is going to have double taxation and that everyone is going to be worse off. I cannot possibly accept that as a general statement.

The hon. member for Mooi River has come back to the question of the fermented juices and beverages—“gegiste vrugtesappe” as it is known in Afrikaans. The tax of course only applies to the fermented juices. That is the first point I want to make.

It does not apply to appletizer and that sort of juice.

No, the status quo remain in regard to those sort of juices and also applies to all those fruit juices which are produced on a fair scale today and many of which are being exported. Those are not affected.

The fermented juices are affected.

Yes, but as I say, our whole aim here is not to discriminate one way or the other. We have had very serious representations in this regard. For instance, wine is a very important product and the wine industry certainly sees the building up of this fermented beverage industry as a very unfair type of competition if it is tax free. I suggest to the hon. member that we should give this a try. No one wants to be unfair in the other direction. We will see whether this causes hardships or has effects which we cannot foresee at the moment. In that case we will certainly review it. The hon. member will know that is exactly what we did in the case of the added excise duty last year on unfortified wine. The new rate of duty proved to be rather high in the light of experience and we therefore reduced it by 3 cents. If that is the sort of position that will arise also with the fermented fruit juices, I would certainly be prepared to look very closely at the matter again and I will discuss it again with the hon. member. We do not want to cause hardship. We are merely trying to attain a sort of fair competition as far as the incidence of the tax is concerned. That is all I am trying to achieve. So I am sorry I cannot meet the hon. members there, but we will watch the situation very closely. Perhaps the hon. member is right and perhaps we are right. Mr. Chairman, I accordingly regret that we cannot accept these amendments.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. M. Sutton negatived (New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendments moved by Mr. I. F. A. de Villiers negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief as we have already stated, during the Second Reading and briefly during the Committee Stage, the difficulties we have with the Bill which is before the House. In reply the hon. the Minister states that he has to go to the taxpayer for certain revenues to meet the high expenditure in respect of the many services being rendered in South Africa. We agree with him that some of these are very important services and we are in agreement with him that he has to find the money. We also agree that he cannot simply abolish taxes and make no other provision for the revenues which he requires to be able to meet the expenditure in regard to these services. So far we are in agreement. We are also in agreement with him that the general sales tax may—we hope it will—be a considerable improvement in the tax system of South Africa. We are therefore not opposed to that either. What we on this side of the House are concerned about, is the fact that the general sales tax should be applied in such a way as not to create undue tax duplication and undue hardship in respect of certain income groups. If it is found to do that, other sources of revenue should be found rather than having one which imposes that kind of hardship on the poorer classes of the community. The hon. the Minister and other hon. members on that side of the House have taken some degree of umbrage at the suggestion from this side of the House that it may in fact impose hardship on the poorer classes. If one analyses the budgets of the poor to see what their unavoidable expenditures are and if one calculates what part of their income they will have to spend on commodities which are subject to the general sales tax, one finds that their total expenditure on tax, direct plus indirect, increases. If one then, by comparison, looks at the total tax expenditure, both direct and indirect, of people in the higher income groups, one finds that their total tax expenditure has decreased. In the light of this one has to look harder at this subject. I believe the hon. the Minister would willingly take a further look at this situation, because it can surely not be his intention to impose additional hardships on the poor of this country, those who are least able to bear the tax burden. In expressing our objections to clause 13 of the Bill, it is these things we had in mind. We are making a protest in this form. We have no major objections to the Bill as a whole. We have opposed the Bill merely on the grounds which I have explained. We will continue to express this opposition, not because we wish this Bill to fail, but because we believe it is right that from these benches we should remind the hon. the Minister forcefully that he cannot achieve his objective of increasing his tax revenues in such a manner that he reduces the direct taxes on the people of South Africa, and also reduces the indirect taxes. One or the other must go up if the hon. the Minister is to improve his revenues. A better remedy would be an increase of productivity, a remedy which we like the best of all. We are alarmed at the fact that on present calculations of the workings of the tax measures brought by the hon. the Minister, the burden appears likely to fall hardest on the least privileged section of the community.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. I should just like to comment on the last point put by the hon. member for Constantia by repeating what I said earlier in another debate, i.e. that if one takes the average income of Blacks, which according to an authoritative survey which was done not long ago is R1 272 per year, one will find that the sort of things which are now to be taxed under the general sales tax, accounts for 60% of their expenditure. After making the adjustments which I have mentioned, it would mean that the man will be paying an extra R1,75 per month on average. As far as Whites and everybody else who pay income tax are concerned, I think the hon. member is leaving out of account the fact that we have a progressive scale of tax. As the income increases, the rate of tax also increases. The progression is fairly significant. In fact, I had a request from the hon. member for Hillbrow in this session that I must bring down the maximum marginal rate of tax. How does that square with what the hon. member for Constantia is saying?

It was not me who said that.

The hon. member did say so. It is in Hansard. Hon. members have to be consistent. These things are not as simple as they look. We are dealing with progressive taxation. That is all I have to say.

I thank the hon. members for the interest they have taken in this measure and leave it at that.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate on this specific legislation we objected to the fact that principles were uncorporated in the legislation which could lead to the practical implementation of the welfare services being undermined due to the application of those principles. A debate took place on grounds of the standpoints that we raised, and it continued during the Committee Stage. We have now reached the Third Reading of the Bill and as far as I am concerned we have not yet cleared up this matter satisfactorily. The hon. the Minister promised that he would reply to some of the standpoints during his reply to the Third Reading debate, and we are looking forward to that. I think it is necessary once again to draw attention to some of the objections that we raised, because those objections have not yet been eliminated. We believe that they are just as valid now, in the Third Reading, as they were previously. During the Second Reading debate we asked for this Bill to be referred to a Select Committee so that it could be looked at again, in co-operation and in consultation with all the national organizations that will be affected by it, as well as to give these organizations an opportunity to raise their specific objections and to put their specific questions to the drafters of this Bill. That request, however, was refused.

It is unfortunate that all these people who had misgivings to begin with, still have precisely the same misgivings. Amongst them we have someone like Dr. Van der Ross, who is the chairman of the Community Development Foundation. Long before this Bill was introduced, he also requested that it should be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. the Minister, however, refused outright. I believe that he lost a golden opportunity that presented itself for placing effective legislation on the Statute Book. Unfortunately, he will now for ever be saddled with the distinction that, when he had the opportunity to create effective legislation, he did not make use of that opportunity. I do not think it is because he did not have the insight to realize that he was introducing a poor Bill, but because, when he made his appearance in the Cabinet as a young Minister, he realized that he would now have to abide by the antiquated, hidebound norms of the NP cabinet, norms that are so detrimental to all the legislation piloted through this Parliament.

The first aspect to which we object, is the fact that in this Bill, the Government is not keeping to the principle of implementing a partnership between the State and the community. The Government disregarded that principle in drawing up this Bill. It is one of the most important principles in a free community like the one which we should like to see in South Africa. In a free community there should be a partnership between the Government and the community. This partnership should depend on the contribution of the community, on initiative, enthusiasm, talents and compassion for one’s fellow man, as well as on the contribution of the State through informed, progressive leadership and the provision of funds and assistance. The Government must not try to dominate everything, or try to apply all-embracing control, but must try to help and lend a hand. Unfortunately, that principle has gone by the board completely in drafting this Bill.

The second principle that fell by the way, is the principle of democracy. It is vital that organizations like those the hon. the Minister wants to create in terms of the Bill, organizations that will function on a national and a regional level, should be representative of all the hundreds of organizations that are going to have a part in ensuring the success of the operation of national welfare. They must be represented on a democratic basis in the bodies that control their activities. In other words, those organizations must be constituted on the basis of the democratic election of the members of those organizations. The members must be democratically elected by all the organizations that form part of that setup. In this specific case the hon. the Minister has decided, however, that he should have the sole right to appoint the members of those bodies. The whole principle of democracy is being totally denied in the establishment and creation of this Bill.

Where is it going to get the funds?

It will get its funds from the Government and from the public. I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, however, that the Government has no funds of its own, and that it is all money contributed by the public for the public and in the interests of the public. The Government must realize that these are not their funds; it is not their money. It is money contributed by the total community of South Africa, by all the groups of the community of South Africa. That principle is being totally denied by the hon. the Minister.

Another principle is the principle of creating a system based on community service, and not a principle based on creating a welfare state. I should like to quote what a certain Professor Lombard said in this regard. Professor Loard is the head of the Department of Economics at the University of Pretoria. He wrote a book Freedom, Welfare and Order, a book that the hon. the Minister would do well to read. In it he said—

As regards what we are dealing with here, it is clear that what the hon. the Minister is creating here, is the mechanism of a welfare state. He is not creating the mechanism of a free State and a free community. It is very clear that the hon. the Minister is doing so. It is a great pity that the hon. the Minister has taken these unlimited powers into his own hands. Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister insists on wanting to exercise excessive powers, in this respect too.

Another principle that we are opposed to, is the principle that there will not be an appeal to the courts of South Africa if there should be a dispute between a welfare organization and some regional welfare board in regard to the decision of the hon. the Minister and his department. Firstly, we believe it is completely right that there should be an appeal within the circle itself and that the people themselves must try to solve problems that arise. If an agreement cannot be reached, however—if the matter cannot be settled there—there must always be the opportunity for such an organization to resort to the courts of the land, so that it can have a completely independent decision in connection with the grievances that it may have in this regard. When we talk about democratically elected bodies, that have to exercise control over all these aspects, when we talk about the right of appeal, we must put very clearly to the hon. the Minister the principle of the credibility of the leaders of these organizations. If we do not do so, there is not going to be the credibility that there could otherwise be, and this will handicap the work of the organizations.

That is a scandalous remark!

Another principle that was not applied here at all, and for which no provision at all was made, is the principle relating to the co-ordination among all the organizations, all the bodies and all the people concerned with the implementation of this legislation. There is absolutely no mechanism for co-ordination between the S.A. Welfare Board and the regional welfare boards incorporated into this legislation. There is no mechanism and no way in which there can be co-ordination among the various regional welfare boards. Nor has any provision been made for overall co-ordination among welfare organizations, regional welfare boards, the S.A. Welfare Board and the Government and its departments. No provision has been made for co-ordination with the Director of Fund-collecting, the organization that represent welfare workers and all the other relevant organizations. The entire legislation, and all the bodies that it sketches, are totally devoid of any provision for co-ordination. It is in connection with this type of legislation, this work and these organizations that co-ordination is of vital importance. It is absolutely essential for the efficient implementation of the work of those organizations. In this respect, I believe the Government has failed to provide South Africa with good legislation. It is a fact that in this regard the hon. the Minister has unfortunately introduced legislation that will be largely paralysed by its deficiencies.

We now come to the requirement that welfare organizations will have to register as fund-raising organizations, even if they are also registered as welfare organizations. Unfortunately, these organizations will now be saddled with double the amount of red tape, double the cost, and double the delays that are going to occur as a result of the dual registration that will have to take place. [Interjections.] If these organizations comply with all the requirements in terms of the National Welfare Act, and if they have stood the test, why are the same organizations obliged to submit yet again to all the tests and all the provisions of the Fund-raising Act?

They do not need to register for both!

The hon. the Minister himself said that if an organization does not register as a welfare organization, it will be subject to certain disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage is that it cannot apply for financial support from the Government. [Interjections.] These people are therefore obliged to register. They are not only obliged to register as a welfare organization, but in addition they are also obliged to register as a fund-raising organization. Consequently they have to be harassed by unnecessary delays and unnecessary expense, and they have to submit to the unnecessary red tape that accompanies it. [Interjections.] I feel it is most unfortunate that all these provisions have been incorporated in the legislation.

Then we come to what is probably the most unfortunate, most contemptible and the most lamentable principle in the legislation. It is the principle of apartheid. This legislation is based, is founded on the apartheid principles and philosophies of the Government. It is terribly unfortunate that this has to be the case. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said that the South African Welfare Board could perhaps be established on a multinational basis, but that he still had to consult with other bodies. I do not know what other bodies he has to consult to determine whether it can be done or not. There is no mention in the legislation, however, of it being or having to be a multiracial body. Nor is any provision made in the legislation for it to be a multiracial body. What the hon. the Minister did say very clearly, is that the regional board would not be multiracial, that the regional boards will only represent a single racial group. Therefore, what the hon. the Minister said very unequivocally and clearly, is that the regional boards will be purely apartheid institutions. It amounts to nothing but apartheid. The hon. the Minister objected to my use of the word apartheid. He said it was irresponsible of me to use the word apartheid. However, apartheid was created by the NP. Apartheid is a process, a way of life that is embodied in South Africa’s legislation. There is virtually no law in the South African Statute Book that is not based on apartheid and that does not seek to control the entire community in South Africa, and all its activities, in terms of the rules and regulations of apartheid. [Interjections.]

All this is a consequence of the fact that the Government believes that the identity of groups must be protected. The Government based this legislation on apartheid, in opposition to the desires, the requirements of those who are active in the welfare industry.

Name them!

I shall name them. I am still coming to that. South Africa wanted to establish its welfare services on a multiracial basis. The representations that were made in that regard, were that there should be a service that should not be based upon the principles of apartheid. Just call to mind the Theron Commission. That commission, which consisted of illustrious, responsible, leading South Africans, and which studied the entire matter over a period of years in a thorough and conscientious fashion, recommended that there should be one department of welfare services. What did the Government do? It ignored that recommendation and established its services on an apartheid basis.

Have you analysed that recommendation?

Yes, I have read it. Prof. Erika Theron had the following to say in a speech that she made recently—

That is the truth, Sir. The so-called moral or ethical grounds upon which the Government bases its legislation, can be questioned, and are suspect. That is why the legislation based upon them may be questioned, and is suspect. The S.A. National Council for Child and Family Welfare recently changed their constitution in order to get rid of apartheid. The Social Workers’ Association of the Witwatersrand also repudiated the statement that different organizations are required for the various racial groups in order to protect group identity. But the Government continues to force its approach, based on apartheid, upon these people. These people have stated their standpoints as a result of their own convictions, but the Government does not agree. That is why it seeks to force its approach in the sphere of welfare work upon these people.

Apartheid in this legislation and apartheid in the life of South Africa, that separates people from one another, makes co-operation among people impossible.

It interrupts the vitally important communication that must exist between people, and has resulted in the understanding between White and Black South Africans, between Coloureds and White people and between Indians and White people, which is also vitally important, being destroyed. The practical consequences of apartheid have resulted in a feeling of rebellion on the part of the Black group towards the Government and towards the Whites. It means that South Africa is isolated in the world today, and that it is practically impossible for us to communicate with other communities in other parts of the world. It causes tremendous problems.

You are talking through your hat!

It is the absolute truth and that hon. member knows it. If he reads the report of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he will see what the consequences of this type of legislation is.

Order! The hon. member must deal with that subject in a more limited context now.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to this legislation, which is based chiefly on apartheid principles, and I am referring to its consequences. I have told the hon. the Minister that apartheid is something temporary; it is not going to be here for ever. Within the next five to ten years that evil will have vanished from the face of South Africa. Only its scars will remain.

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

Sir, my argument was that the hon. the Minister is busy with apartheid legislation. I am only sorry that this unfortunate Minister will have to live through the consequences of this legislation. Perhaps he will still have to face the day of reckoning in South Africa.

Are you threatening me?

No, I am not threatening the Minister; I have told him what is going to happen. I like the hon. the Minister; I am concerned about his welfare.

This legislation concerns the sick, the elderly and the defenceless. It concerns circumstances where mankind is faced by poverty, misery and suffering. Where those circumstances prevail, the colour bars fade. The colour bars fade, not only amongst the people who are suffering, but also amongst those who want to help and assist the suffering. Welfare workers do not mind working day and night, hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder in order to help people who are suffering as a result of these circumstances. Colour is not the primary consideration to them. They simply do not notice it. When people want to help their fellow man, it does not matter whether there is a difference of colour. Compassion and charity know no colour. But the Government nevertheless insists that colour-consciousness should be imposed on people and organizations that do not know colour by way of legislation. That is what we are objecting to.

I can quote hundreds of examples. Just take the example of Prof. Ben Piek of the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, and Prof. Maritz of Unisa. They felt so strongly about it that they resigned from the South African Sociological Association because that association was not prepared to remove apartheid from its constitution. As a result, steps were then taken to amend the constitution. There are many other welfare organizations that have also removed apartheid from their constitutions in order to enable their organizations to act more efficiently. For instance, I refer to the Society for Social Workers of the Western Cape. Its members decided to remove apartheid. The following is stated—

This is the type of thing that an apartheid institution entails. I quote further—

There is a desire to move closer to one another and to co-operate in order to achieve the objectives of the legislation. There is also the conviction that it can be done more efficiently on a multiracial basis. Then there is also the determination that apartheid must not interfere and hamper this work.

The hon. the Minister, however, has overlooked all of this. He has not perceived it. He may have been aware of it, but he was not prepared to take it into consideration. He felt it was necessary to incorporate apartheid in the legislation. He felt it was necessary to erect barbed wire fences between these groups and people. I see he is not listening to what I am saying now. The hon. the Minister erected barbed wire fences between people and organizations, where fences did not exist before and where the people and organizations did not want barbed wire fences to be erected between them. [Interjections.]

To conclude, I just want to say that, as a result of the philosophy of the Government and the fact that they see apartheid in everything and incorporate it in everything, every commandment of the Lord is being undermined by the apartheid prohibition of the Government.

Order! The hon. member can use a different argument.

The commandment that one should love one’s neighbour is being undermined by the apartheid prohibition that one can only do so provided that you and your fellow-man are of the same colour. In other words, one can only be a good Samaritan within one’s own colour context and not outside it. The apartheid principles in this legislation will have this result, expressly and specifically.

Mr. Speaker, one would have imagined that at this stage of the discussion of this Bill one could have expected from the hon. member for Bryanston a far more constructive contribution than that we have had to listen to. What we have heard from the hon. member for Bryanston was the same old theme song we have heard from him in the Second Reading and throughout the Committee Stage. One would really have thought that since we are dealing here with, as he has said, matters affecting the welfare of our citizens, matters such as poverty, loneliness and distress, he would at least at this stage of the discussion have had one word to say of a constructive nature so that the people outside could have confidence in this type of legislation. I think that the hon. member is so dominated by his race concepts that he cannot think constructively. The hon. member had a great deal to say about the fact that it was this side of the House that introduced apartheid, differentiation, separation, or call it what you will.

That is what you used to say.

I should like to tell the hon. member that his own leader was first elected to the House on the principle of separate identities and that that principle has been the tradition of the South African nation through the years.

Do you still believe in apartheid?

The hon. member should recognize this, but he had just been born in those days. He was running around in his baby swaddling-clothes when we were discussing these matters.

He still acts that way.

The hon. member, when he made these wild statements here, was exploiting race in order to make a little political capital for his party and to sow discontent and mistrust amongst the non-White people of our country in respect of the welfare activities of the Government as contained in this Bill.

He is still running around in his nappy.

I doubt whether anything we can say will have the slightest effect on the hon. member, because I doubt his ability to absorb it.

Particularly after the lengthy discussions on this Bill in the Committee Stage, this Bill at the Third Reading appears as the foundation on which our welfare services as a modern civilized State will function. It will operate on the proven partnership—the hon. member for Bryanston said that that partnership does not exist, but it does exist—between welfare organizations and the State. The hon. member fails to realize that this Bill supplies the structure in relation to which the State will act as the binding and the cohesive element in our national welfare services. Without that, they would not be able to operate effectively.

Nowhere in the provisions of this Bill can it be shown that the State will usurp the functions of established welfare organizations. Nowhere in this Bill can it be shown that the State will usurp the wonderful unselfish service of thousands of our citizens who are guided in their work by the highest motives of serving their fellow human beings and citizens. Nowhere in this Bill can it be shown that, as regards these services, the colour of a man’s skin will be the criterion in the application of the provisions of this Bill when it becomes an Act.

What about the regional boards?

In fact, colour and race has not at any time been the criterion in the welfare work that we have conducted in South Africa. Throughout the lengthy discussions in the previous stages of the Bill we have had nothing but a purely racial approach on the part of the Official Opposition in what I can only describe as an unscrupulous attempt to exploit race and spread distrust abroad. Other speakers on that side of the House are going to take part. I hope that the hon. member for Pinelands will be the next to speak on their side. I challenge the Official Opposition at this late stage of the discussion to give one solitary example of discord, disagreement or racial prejudice in the wonderful partnership that has existed between the State and our welfare organizations. I challenge them even to give one example where racial prejudice or discord has been in operation between one welfare organization and another. I challenge them, further, to give me one example where racial discrimination in our welfare work has reared its head in the wonderful work that our churches do in this regard. There is no example of this. This Bill allows for the clear decentralization of welfare administration and control with the powers and functions assigned to regional boards to a much greater extent than exists at present. The functions of these boards are as described in clause 11 of the Bill. According to these functions the regional boards will be controlled by the welfare organizations in the regions for which they are appointed. That is because the boards are so constituted that three quarters of their own nominated representatives are appointed. If the hon. member for Bryanston does not believe this, let me refer him to clause 7 of the Bill. The members of the Opposition are so dominated by race concepts that they have attempted by their amendments to force racial integration even into the operation of these boards. With the numerous amendments …

We do not want forced separation.

Those hon. members have attempted to force racial integration into the operation of these boards by virtue of the amendments they have moved, irrespective of the wishes of the citizens or the welfare organizations in the areas in which regional boards would operate.

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

Mr. Speaker, my time is limited.

Why? You have half an hour.

That hon. Whip knows the time is limited. I repeat that they have attempted to force through integrated boards, irrespective of the wishes of the citizens and the welfare organizations in the areas in which a regional boards will operate. We had that again today from the hon. member for Bryanston.

The concept of regional planning, and regional development based on forward planning, which this Bill clearly points to, was originally the idea of the Van Rooyen Commission and was formulated after considerable research and listening to a great deal of evidence. These new boards will certainly allow for better and more efficient service and cohesion of activities of the various welfare organizations concerned, with consequent benefit—and let me emphasize “consequent benefit”—to the recipients of those services for whom the hon. member for Bryanston and the Official Opposition have shown now regard whatsoever in their discussion of this measure. Even this concept was opposed by the Official Opposition with the numerous amendments that they moved.

They attempted to create, out of this Bill, a vast bureaucratic structure controlled at the top by a powerful National Welfare Council which, if these amendments had been accepted in the Committee Stage, would have had the effect of creating an administrative structure parallel to that of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. They have even failed to accept or realize the basic concept of this legislation, viz. that it is based on the principle of the decentralization of these services. During the discussions in the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage, they utterly failed to understand the basic welfare philosophy underlying the structure of this Bill, i.e. to place in the hands of the community itself the control of their own welfare needs in their own areas.

I should like to refer to Chapter 1 of the Bill. This chapter deals with the constitution and the functions of the S.A. Welfare Council which will come into being after the passage of this Bill. The functions of this council— and I should like the hon. member for Bryanston to listen because I hope he will learn something even at this late stage—as described in the Bill, are very wide-ranging indeed. I wish to emphasize—as indeed the hon. the Minister did in the Second Reading debate—that clause 2 of the Bill places no obstacle whatsoever in the way of a multinational welfare council. This council will deal with welfare policy and programmes across the broadest possible spectrum of our multinational population. It has no administrative functions whatsoever. The administrative function will lie in the hands of the regional boards. There is no confinement of the functions of the council to one race group, be it Black, White or Coloured. There is no restriction whatsoever. This provision should be read in conjunction with clause 22 of the Bill which provides for the possibility of each national or population group being assigned control over its own welfare needs and specifically excludes, in this regard, the S.A. Welfare Council. I do not know whether the hon. member ever bothered to read clause 22. I consider it to be inevitable, if not essential, that there be representation of other national or population groups on the council. Again, on these specific provisions of the Bill, the Official Opposition attempted to impose forced integration in their obsession with racial aspects.

You are forcing separation.

No. The hon. member attempted to enforce racial integration by way of amendments requiring so many Blacks, so many Coloureds and so many Indians to serve on this council. I say, as did the hon. the Minister, that this council should be open …

Not the regional boards; they are not open.

I repeat that racial concepts have dominated their whole approach to this legislation throughout all the lengthy discussions. It would appear that the hon. member for Bryanston has apartheid on the brain. In a four minute speech—I have his Hansard copy here—the hon. member for Bryanston mentioned the word “apartheid” no less than ten times. If the hon. member could take a somewhat more constructive approach in his discussion of the Bill, as he did during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote, he would have the satisfaction of knowing that he had contributed to building South Africa and not only destroying it. He and his party are so dominated by multiracial concepts, however, and the politics of confrontation between White and Black that it has become their only objective …

You are talking nonsense.

It is your objective. That is the road the PFP has set out upon, i.e. the road of confrontation politics between White and Black in South Africa. [Interjections.] Even in this Bill, dealing with the welfare of people, they have attempted to exploit colour. The inclusion of clause 22 was essential in terms of the NP policy of multinationalism, i.e. the recognition of the national rights of other ethnic groups to their own identity and their inherent right to determine their own affairs. In this concept there is no room for racial attitudes to welfare matters, as exploited by the Official Opposition in these discussions. This Bill sets up the structure to deal with human welfare and social problems, a structure based on sound human relationships which will inevitably emerge from our multinational policy. It will be the foundation of our welfare work in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis dealt mainly with the attitude that has been adopted by the Official Opposition in regard to this particular piece of legislation. We on these benches have endeavoured to view this legislation objectively to see whether there are any matters which should receive the attention of the hon. the Minister, particularly in regard to the implementation of this legislation. I say this in view of the fact that we have now reached the Third Reading stage of this Bill. There are certain aspects which I should like to mention at this stage. One is, of course, that with the passing of this legislation the National Welfare Board, the four commissions and the ten regional boards will all fall away. These bodies were established in terms of the National Welfare Act of 1965.

The hon. member for Von Brandis dealt with the question of there being no discrimination and so forth. However, one must also bear in mind that the existing National Welfare Board consists of 16 members and the four commissions of 28 members. Furthermore, there are ten regional boards, the membership of which varies in number from ten to 16, making a total of 129 members. Altogether 173 persons are appointed to these bodies. It is an unfortunate situation that, although those bodies deal with over 3 900 registered welfare organizations dealing with all race groups, all those appointments are restricted to members of the White race. This has been a failing in regard to bringing about a better situation concerning the welfare organizations.

By passing this legislation, we are creating a new South African Welfare Council. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he will give consideration to appointing a council which will consist of members of other race groups. I hope the hon. the Minister will give a clear indication to the House as to the possible constitution of this council. We on these benches endeavoured to have amendments passed, firstly, to give representation on the council to the regional boards and, secondly, to see that representation was also afforded to the other race groups. Neither of these amendments was accepted, but I hope the hon. the Minister, in appointing the S.A. Welfare Council, will take into consideration the necessity to have on that council persons who are representative of the various regional boards so as to create a degree of co-ordination and liaison between the regional boards and the S.A. Welfare Council. We believe it is imperative that, if one is to have a co-ordinated welfare service in South Africa to cover all the inhabitants of the country, it is only right that those persons be represented on this council. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to take these matters into consideration when the S.A. Welfare Council is appointed.

The other important principle involved in the legislation is that of the decentralization of certain functions to the regional boards. We on these benches have no objection to such decentralization. On the contrary, we welcome it. We know that there are varying conditions between the regions. There are various matters which required attention in one particular region, which perhaps do not require the same attention in another region. It is, therefore, important to see that the regional boards have the power and the authority to take steps concerning, and to bring to the notice of the Government the various shortcomings in a particular region in connection with welfare services. In the past the registration of a welfare organization has been a lengthy procedure. We know of many cases where people have applied to be registered as a welfare organization and have had to wait, sometimes, up to two years before that registration was effected. Let us hope that, with the additional power which is given in this Bill to the regional boards, these applications for registration will be more expeditiously dealt with.

The whole question of the constitution of these regional boards is the other aspect on which we endeavoured to have an amendment adopted by the House. We tried to indicate to the hon. the Minister the necessity to give recognition to the various race groups involved in the particular region by seeing that those race groups also have representation on the particular regional board. In this regard the position can also vary considerably from one region to another. There might indeed be smaller regions created, the population of which can consist of only one race group. I am thinking of parts of Natal where a geographical region may be brought about in which the Indian people would predominate. If a welfare board is created for that particular area, it will be no problem if such a board consists mainly of people from the Indian group. It is only right that they should be able to do that and play there part in the administration of the welfare services in a particular area. However, there are many regions which consist of different race group areas. In these regions difficulties will arise and a degree of overlapping will occur. If the hon. the Minister is going to implement a policy of complete segregation in respect of the welfare boards based on the various race groups in the different regions, this will lead to a duplication of services. I recently mentioned that some 129 people—at the moment they are all White persons—are serving as members of the existing 10 regional boards. If one were to quadruple that number to provide for the various race groups, it would mean that some 516 people would be serving on the regional boards of those 10 regions, all rendering similar welfare services. There would be a tremendous multiplication of the efforts and the services provided for in a particular region if this segregation is applied. I hope the hon. the Minister will reconsider the question of these regional boards in order to bring about the greater degree of co-ordination that he is indeed seeking in terms of this proposed legislation.

There are practical difficulties which can arise when one takes into consideration the number of welfare organizations, particularly in the field of child welfare, which attend to the welfare needs of various race groups. For instance, in the Durban area the Durban Child Welfare Society has, ever since its inception, assisted in the rendering of welfare services amongst the Coloured community and the White community. They employ staff from both the White and the Coloured race groups. The position was aggregated to a certain extent when the Department of Coloured Relations became responsible for the welfare services for the Coloured people since this society then had to deal with two departments. It is going to be even more complicated if one has to deal with two regional boards. In an area where there is perhaps not a great number of Coloured people, it is surely unwise to create a separate regional board for that Coloured community, because the welfare services there can be rendered within the ambit of the regional board which is dealing with the Whites and the Coloureds as a group. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the position will be of such welfare organizations which are carrying out welfare services amongst two different race groups. Will they be subject to the control that is provided for in respect of the functions of the proposed Coloured regional board and the proposed White regional board? Will it entail additional registration? Will they have to be registered as a welfare organization for the work they are doing amongst the Coloureds and at the same time also be registered as a welfare organization for the work they are doing amongst the Whites? This seems to entail a complete multiplication of services and a wasted effort by a number of dedicated people. In the main these people are volunteers and these voluntary social workers play an important part in the rendering of our welfare services.

There are aspects of this Bill about which we have certain reservations, which I have already mentioned. We see a good deal of merit in this Bill, particularly as far as decentralization is concerned. It brings about an improvement in that it relates welfare services more closely to the regional boards and to the overall administration which affects all welfare organizations. This legislation has been amended from time to time and it is not something new as far as control is concerned.

Since the Welfare Organizations Act of 1947 was put on the Statute Book organizations have been subject to control. When amending legislation was passed in 1965, some people expressed grave reservations about its effectiveness. I think the amendment Act of 1965 has worked well overall. However, it contained certain shortcomings, which created a necessity for this type of proposed legislation in order to try to improve the situation and to bring about a greater degree of decentralization and a greater co-ordination of effort in particular regions to ensure that our welfare services are not adversely affected by wasted effort and overlapping. We in these benches intend supporting the Third Reading of this legislation and hope that the hon. the Minister will give due consideration to the points of view that we have expressed, particularly concerning the constitution of the South African Welfare Council and the constitution of the proposed regional boards. We are not prepared to damn this legislation, because it is imperative that the community as a whole are confident that we are creating a structure which is going to facilitate our welfare services and provide an efficient and competent welfare service. Therefore we do not damn this legislation and we hope it will succeed, but we think it will be more successful if the hon. the Minister takes into account the suggestions that we in these benches have made.

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with what the hon. member for Umbilo has just said, but I am quite convinced that what the hon. member for Bryanston said here this afternoon as well as during the Committee Stage and Second Reading, has, in the first place, harmed not only himself, but also his party. They call themselves a “progressive” party. When I think of the word “progressive”, I usually associate it with progress and with a scientific approach. As regards the hon. members of the PFP, their approach to this matter as it emerged during the discussion of this legislation, is one which is shamefully unscientific. I mention this specifically as I have here in my hand an example of this particular legislation having been tested in the Vaal Triangle. This was done scientifically and the legislation satisfied all requirements. The Opposition has also seen these results. Now the question arises why the hon. member for Bryanston—let me single him out this afternoon since he spoke in this debate—remains completely unconvinced, even though the matter rests on a scientific basis. Is it because he is so—I feel like saying—obsessed with his own idea of progressive racism, which has been very much in evidence in the debate up to now?

I shall tell hon. members why I am referring to this. During the Second Reading debate I made a brief quotation from a study, The Southern Africa Study Project, in which it was stated in advance—this study project was launched from the USA and church organizations were requested to stand in for the so-called affected organizations banned in October last year—that objections were to be raised to the three Bills to be considered by this House, and that things were to be made as difficult as possible for the hon. the Minister, for hon. members participating in the proceedings and for Parliament, so as to prevent these three Bills from being passed. If one considers the large number of amendments that were moved and the amount of time being taken up by this debate, and if one has regard to the fact that this study project also expects the leftist liberal groups to do everything in their power to continue casting suspicion on this legislation after it has been passed, then I refer to this statement I made a moment ago, viz. that they have been preoccupied with an obsession in respect of this legislation, and that is that whatever its good points, the legislation, as far as they are concerned, remains totally unacceptable. Therefore that hon. member and his party, if his party associates itself with him, cannot lay claim to being scientific.

I do not want to make any further quotations from the Southern Africa Study Project as I do not want to take up too much time. The fact of the matter is simply that we cannot reach any other conclusion but that this hand of the PFP fits perfectly into the pattern that was prescribed. Having listened to what was said by the hon. members of the PFP one can only come to the conclusion that what is involved is not policy or principles, but the odd petty matters they try to single out! On the basis of those things they try to make out a case for themselves but they are unable to see the principle of the matter, or the philosophy of the legislation, as the hon. the Minister put it during the Committee Stage. Their negativism cries to high heaven and the rules of this House prohibit me from saying anything more about it. The hon. the Minister gave explanations. He effected flexible changes to the legislation, in fact, he leaned over backwards to accommodate them and at times pleaded for understanding on their part, but the only reaction from that side of this House was a silly grin from the hon. member for Bryanston, and when he was not grinning, he was making one negative remark after the other. The result is that slowly but surely a negative feeling is building up on this side of the House with regard to the Official Opposition and their bona fides. Are they serious? Do they know per se, what this legislation is about? Do they really have the desire to co-operate, to co-operate as members of this hon. House?

The legislation we are discussing at the moment, as well as the other two Bills that will be discussed at a later stage, is ushering in a new era in the history of welfare work in the Republic. It is going to take the finest not only from Government machinery, but also from the national economy, from the community as such. This legislation will come to be known as a monument to the hon. the Minister, a man who persisted in advancing and defending this matter. It will be a monument to the hon. the Minister long after the demise of the PFP in sackcloth and ashes.

In conclusion I want to say that we should ask ourselves the question today what we mean when we speak of welfare work. What does welfare work mean, especially from the point of view of the Government? In the first place, does it not amount to the welfare of all the people in the country—and the Government is responsible for everyone—being the point at issue? Should it not go well with all the people in the country? This, in point of fact, is what the concept of “welfare” means. In the Maatskaplike Woordeboek it is defined as follows—

In the language of the people the word “welfare” is mostly used to mean social assistance, in the sense of relieving the minds of those who are burdened and in the sense of alleviating their problems, by they social, physical, spiritual, mental, cultural or material problems. The issue here is people in distress, people in—and I want to put it this way—existential distress. What is involved is personal distress, family distress, children’s distress, the distress of the prisoner. Therefore, what is involved here in the comprehensive sense of the word, is human distress. That is why I believe, and it is my privilege to say this, that a responsible Government will see to the welfare of its people.

Therefore social welfare is and ought to be, the pulsebeat of the Government, the great artery of a responsible Government. On the one hand it should be remedial. On the other hand it should be preventive as well. We all know that prevention is better than cure.

Now, however, there are a few false principles I should like to point out. These are the traps into which the Official Opposition fall time and again. Social welfare is not the exclusive task of the responsible Government. If we regard it as such, we shall arrive at the welfare State. That, we know, is an Utopia. The people and the community also have their responsibility, their duty to fulfil. The people should also answer the call of distress of their fellow-human beings, the call of distress of their neighbours. If the hon. member for Bryanston wants to quote from the Bible, I want to do so, too, but without my making any reference to a commandment as he did. Social welfare is the responsibility of man towards his fellow-man. Therefore, the question we should ask ourselves is this: What is my duty towards my fellow-man in distress?

What is extremely important, is that there must be a point somewhere—and in this regard I request the support of the hon. Opposition, if they want to be objective and scientific—at which the Government on the one hand and the community on the other hand is able to meet, so that we may have State service as well as community service. There must be a meeting point somewhere so that we may have State subsidies as well as community contributions. That is true democracy. An interaction between the community and the State is not a socialist, communist or autocratic system; it is a democratic system which has come into operation here.

In considering the Government’s policy with regard to social welfare, we have to consider the ethnic policy of the Government as well, because racist remarks were flung across the floor of this House from that side of the House time and again. In terms of the ethnic policy of the Government, the particular needs of each nation will, and must be seen to in the situation of each group. Therefore recognition is given to the individuality of the individual, in the context of the individual, belonging to his or her group or community. Social Welfare can therefore be seen as national welfare, but at the same time also as human welfare. In other words, there is equality in the midst of separation, and it is differentiated but not divided. What must be emphasized in this regard, is not only my responsibility towards my fellow-man belonging to a different people, but also his responsibility towards himself. The view of the hon. the Opposition is that there should be a unitary welfare State, in which the welfare of all the people is to be seen to on an undifferentiated basis. In contradistinction to that the NP’s view is that it accepts responsibility for its own people, by its own people, for the benefit of its own people. Moreover, this is to happen by means of the recognition of the individual as belonging to a particular people, where the State has a responsibility towards the people and they have a responsibility towards the State. Therefore, social welfare services must be provided for the various nations by their own people. That is what self-determination means.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I want to say firstly to the hon. the Minister and to hon. members opposite that the only reason why the hon. member for Bryanston is not here now and may well not be here when the hon. the Minister replies, is that he is a member of a Standing Committee, and since a particular Vote is being discussed in the Senate Chamber, I in fact instructed him to be there. [Interjections.] So, Sir, I accept full responsibility for the hon. member’s absence, but bearing in mind that he spoke not in his personal capacity but on behalf of members in these benches, hon. members will appreciate why he has to be there. I do not want to repeat all the arguments that have been made both at Second Reading and in the Committee Stage. I should, however, like to make a few points in response to the debate so far.

I should like to remind the House that when this particular Bill was first published in draft form as long ago as last July, there was an immediate outcry from a large number of responsible social welfare organizations and individuals, who then made representations to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor and to the department. Even after the present Minister assumed his position, further representations were made. People were anxious and concerned, and while it is true that a number of changes were introduced before this Bill was introduced into this House for its First Reading, there are none the less still a number of provisions which cause unhappiness and dissatisfaction not merely amongst members on this side of the House, but also amongst a number of organizations. I shall not quote them again because I quoted them during my Second Reading speech, and they were referred to again during the Committee Stage.

I want to make just one major point in response to what was said by the hon. members for Von Brandis and Brits today, and that is that when this legislation was introduced, the hon. the Minister made clear the underlying philosophy of his party’s understanding of identity and separation in their overall policy. He had every right to do so, but in doing so he did stress—and it is no use trying to duck this one—that in so far as the national board is concerned, it may well be possible that it will be composed on a multinational basis, to use his own term. He said that nothing was being put in the way of this, but that certain consultations in this respect still had to take place.

I declared my intention.

Yes, that is right. In terms of the regional boards the hon. the Minister also took us into his confidence and told the House that he saw no reason at all why the regional boards should be represented on a multinational basis. Therefore it was also our right to say that we would prefer to see these on a fully represented basis in the regions where these regional boards were formed.

Your amendment did not state that.

I am not talking about the amendment. I am talking about our intention that regional boards should be representative of the total community concerned. That is the reason why we advanced one of our major objections. We are sorry that in spite of all the entreaties we made and the arguments we advanced, the substantial amendments that were moved during the Committee Stage were not accepted by the hon. the Minister. That is why we stand up again and say that the foundation for social welfare work upon which we are building— and that is what this is all about; we are talking about legislation which is going to affect the social welfare work throughout the land—is a false foundation which sets up directly, as stated by the hon. the Minister, regional boards according to racial groups.

Oh, no.

We did not introduce that.

According to community interests.

Yes, according to community interests, but we have made it quite clear that it is not according to multinational representation, and that means only one thing. We know that. It is not according to the language one speaks or the culture one inherits. It is according to the colour of one’s skin, and we are against that. We have been consistent in saying so. There are also many social welfare agencies and social welfare workers who agree with us.

Oh, no!

Yes they are, and they have made representations. We have quoted them. [Interjections.] After all, whatever one says about Dr. Erika Theron, she made the point that it would be fatal, and those were the words she used …

You have been consistently challenged to name one.

I have quoted one and I shall quote another. The hon. member for Bryanston quoted the Western Cape social workers who brought forward representations. [Interjections.] The hon. member asked for one and we have given him one. [Interjections.] I can give him another one. The social workers of Durban are another example. How many more does he want? He asked for one and I have given him two.

They made no representations to you.

No, they made representations to the hon. the Minister and they sent copies to us. We are trying to represent an opinion. That is why we cannot vote for the Third Reading. We believe that in the end this legislation is going to change as things in this country change, and we look forward to that day.

Mr. Speaker, firstly, I want to thank all the members who participated in the debate for their contributions, except the hon. member for Bryanston. I shall comment in a moment on that hon. member’s contribution. I even want to thank the hon. member for Pinelands, for at least he spoke in a reasonable tone and at least used reasonable terminology and set off one argument against another.

The hon. member for Bryanston, however, participated in the debate in his usual way, and that did not induce me to feel grateful.

The hon. member for Umbilo apologized for not being able to be here because he had a plane to catch. In his absence, however, I want to tell him that his concern for the rules of the S.A. Welfare Council is unnecessary. We shall publish them together with the regulations—they will be included in them— and he himself and all welfare organizations will have every opportunity to take cognizance of what is being proposed and to make representations. The representations will be studied and considered very thoroughly, and as we did with the representations we received on the Bill which was originally published, we shall also take any sound suggestions which we may receive into consideration in order to improve the regulations, wherever it is possible to improve them. I shall discuss the rest of his argument when I reply to the hon. member for Bryanston. The same applies to the hon. member for Pinelands. He will also find an answer in my reply to the hon. member for Bryanston.

First I want to state in a nutshell a few of the minor matters which were once again raked up by the hon. member for Bryanston. Once again he complained because we had not referred the Bill to a Select Committee, but once again he omitted to state that there had been two expert committees and that the Bill had been drafted on the basis of their reports. We found it conspicuous that he did not associate himself with the tribute which was paid in this House to these two committees for their good work. It was also conspicuous that he did not quote a single passage from those reports to prove that this Bill was not a fair representation of the recommendations of these two expert committees. Once again he ignored the fact that, except for one in each committee, there were no officials in the employ of the State serving on the committees, but in fact people from the welfare community itself. He again complained that we were being undemocratic. I think the hon. member for Brits replied adequately to this aspect. However, I want to attack the hon. member again on a single point in this context. He omitted to mention that there is a nomination procedure for the regional boards and that I am compelled to appoint 75% of the members of the regional boards from among people nominated by the welfare organizations themselves. If that is not a fair form of democracy, I do not know what the hon. member’s definition of democracy is, except of course that we know that what he actually has in mind is “one man, one vote”, regardless of race or colour.

He went on to say that we were creating the mechanism for a welfare State here. On this he has also been replied to effectively by other speakers who participated in the debate. I just want to add that during the discussion of the Social Welfare and Pensions Vote the hon. member asked me to do a great deal more in that sphere. He said that the State should do more of this and more of that. He said that the means test should be changed, etc. But now he is saying, on the other hand, that the State is doing too much. In none of these Bills before the House is there an intensification of the role or welfare function of the State. All that is being done is that better and more effective structures and greater opportunities are being created to ensure participation by and involvement of the community.

The hon. member again made an oblique reference to my allegedly not liking the word “apartheid”. I have no problems with the word “apartheid” as such, as I have said before. I am perfectly happy with the policy of apartheid. It is what we in this country are continuing to maintain. What I do have something against, is the caricature which is being made of it, the false image which is being presented and projected of the policy, something in which that hon. member participates by the way in which he discusses race matters and questions the bona fides of this side of the House.

He may differ with us on the question of whether our solution is right or wrong, but we object when our bona fides are questions and the impression is created that we are pursuing an oppressive policy which does not want to create rights and opportunities for other people or which deprives other people of self-determination. We say that a person who presents such a caricature of our policy, should rather not use the word. The hon. member also appealed to heaven this afternoon. I stopped him, but he did not even want to allow himself to be stopped and he proceeded to quote one specific commandment against us. He said that we were, with this legislation, breaking the commandment that one should love one’s neighbour as oneself. How many more times do I still have to say that in none of these Bills is any obstacle of any description whatsoever being placed in the way of any person or any organization to do good, to donate money and to do welfare work for and on behalf of any person, regardless of race or colour? Is that clear now; Surely he heard me say this during the Second Reading, and also during the Committee Stage, but he repeated his allegation again this afternoon. Surely we spelt out during the debate that the employment of workers by welfare organizations would not be affected by this Bill. If he had come here and quoted from the Bill to indicate that my postulation was wrong and that the Bill provided otherwise, we could have argued the matter. However, he knows that he cannot find such a reference, for there is no such provision in the Bill. Let me make it clear beyond any doubt that the division which is being effected in the Bill is manifested in respect of membership of welfare organizations and not in respect of who may be assisted by such organizations or what staff they are employing.

Sir, we have come to the end of a long and protracted debate. I believe it may be said of this Bill that it is one of the most misunderstood Bills we have ever discussed in this House. Unfortunately I must say that some of the members of the PFP contributed to the creation of unnecessary misunderstanding. This is an innocent Bill, and is aimed at decentralization, better planning and greater involvement of the community. Nevertheless it has been held up to be an oppressive measure and a measure which threatens the existence of welfare organizations. It has also been presented as a measure which introduces excessive control and as a measure which is constructed upon race hatred. This is the kind of fallacious image of the Bill which was presented by the hon. member for Bryanston in particular. Hon. members would do well to read his speeches again to see how much hatred and bitterness they exude.

Did he use that word?

That hon. member is saying that he did not use that word, but I want to quote what he said during the Committee Stage (Hansard, 25 May 1978)—

The words which he used were: “prejudice, racialism, segregation, apartheid and all those evils”. If those words do not exude bitterness and hatred, I do not know what they mean.

Mr. Speaker, if you were to ask me what the effect of this Bill will be, I shall formulate it as follows: In the first instance, decentralization on a regional basis, which will afford each region an opportunity to determine its own priorities, to undertake its own planning and to monitor the implementation of its plans itself. The hon. member for Bryanston referred to a partnership which is being disrupted. In these regional councils, however, expression is being given to partnership in its purest form. Here there will be co-operation between welfare organizations and the State, with only a single representative while the remainder of the members are appointed from the private sector …

Appointed by the State?

… from a list of nominees compiled by the welfare organizations. That hon. member was not here a moment ago when I exposed what he had omitted to mention.

Eight out of how many thousand?

Secondly, no welfare organization is being forced into this scheme or system against its will. There is a free choice as to whether it wants to be involved in the activities of the regional board or not. There is only one condition, and that is that they must register if they want to make use of public funds. Thirdly, the rights of welfare organizations are being effectively protected. They are being guaranteed by a right of appeal to an objective committee with a magistrate having more than 10 years’ experience as chairman and two members from the private sector. Nor will there be a lack of co-ordination, as the hon. member said, for in addition to the decentralized regional boards, which will be able to effect co-ordination themselves, there is the S.A. Welfare Council which, in addition to its function of advice to the Government also has the function of giving advice of its own accord (which could, and I hope will, include advice on co-ordination), and to discharge important co-ordinating functions of its own accord. For example, it has to provide the welfare community in general with guidance. If that is not a co-ordinating function, then I do not understand English. It also has to distribute information which may be relevant to welfare organizations. From that, too a large measure of co-ordination may consequently result. In addition it has to arrange conferences between those interested groups and individuals that, in its opinion, ought to get together from time to discuss matters, conferences which may include representatives of all population groups. Consequently I maintain that this Bill creates structures which make ample provision for self-determination on a decentralized basis, the safeguarding of group interests and guiding action by the S.A. Welfare Council.

The debate also revolved around the provisions of clause 22. Clause 22 makes provision for decentralization on an ethnic basis. According to this clause the various population groups will have their own regional boards for their respective communities. These regional boards will draw up, approve and implement regional plans for their communities. The hon. members for Bryanston, Hillbrow and Pinelands almost had a stroke about this. They attacked it bitterly, as I quoted here a moment ago. Let us juxtapose with this the facts which have applied for the past 10 years. During this whole period only two non-Whites, according to my information, were designated for nomination to the regional boards, i.e. in accordance with existing legislation. This is a fact, although more than 250 non-White—Black, Coloured and Indian—welfare organizations are registered. What does that prove? Surely that proves better than anything else that there is no spontaneous insistence on multiracial bodies. If that feeling were in fact present, as the hon. member for Bryanston alleged, surely these welfare organizations would have been inundated with the names of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians for nomination to these regional boards, even if they did not expect us to appoint them.

Surely we would then, out of these 250 non-White welfare organizations, have received a great number of nominations. However, we only received two in a period of ten years. [Interjections.] That proves that something must now be done to ensure a full-fledged say for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in the sphere of welfare. At present they find themselves in an inferior position, and they must be afforded a say. This Bill lends itself to that right of self-determination and to giving them a say. We can argue about our policy and the policy of the PFP in this connection from now until December: Our policy of a full-fledged say to peoples and population groups over their own affairs, and the PFP’s policy in terms of which they advocate integration which will inevitably lead to Black majority rule. I do not want to elaborate on that too much, but want to content myself with putting a single question to them this evening. I am pleased the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is here, because I want to ask him this question. What does he think the utterances of Dr. Motlana of Soweto mean, the statements which he made yesterday at a PFP conference?

What clause is that. [Interjections.]

I do not want to make it difficult for you, Sir, but since the hon. member for Bryanston elaborated on this at some considerable length, I also want to do so. Let me just comment that it is interesting that the PFP holds party conferences on 31 May, Republic Day. [Interjections.] We take cognizance of what they think of Republic Day. According to reports Dr. Motlana said that the pressure must be sustained and that nothing less than full franchise for all 18-year-olds for the same Parliament regardless of race or colour will be acceptable. We have not yet heard the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or any other hon. member of his party repudiating that. [Interjections.] I want to return to the Bill and ask: If a Black person is already saying this at a PFP conference, how can that party still maintain that their policy will lead to anything but Black domination, whether it is in the sphere of politics, welfare or any other sphere for that matter? They do not even have the courage to say that it was an irresponsible demand.

You know it has nothing to do with this legislation. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to point out that I have allowed the hon. the Minister to refer to this. I called the hon. member for Bryanston to order after I had allowed him to elaborate somewhat on this very subject.

*However, the hon. the Minister must now come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we shall continue, as we are also doing in this Bill, to create opportunities for peoples to come into their own, and to develop their right to self-determination in all spheres.

I now want to conclude. The hon. members appealled to the Erika Theron Commission. What did the Erika Theron Commission have to say about welfare work? In paragraph 150, on page 74 of the report, the Commission recommended that—

1. (a) All State welfare services should fall under one department;
2. (b) such departments should be responsible for the overall planning and the laying down of a broad welfare policy for the whole country covering all population groups …

Please note, Sir, that with this legislation a National Welfare Council is now being established which will certainly be of assistance with overall planning. The recommendations went on to state—

1. (c) directorates (or divisions) should be attached to this department, e.g. a Directorate of Coloured Welfare, among others, which will concentrate on the specific welfare needs of the respective population groups …

What else is this Bill doing? The recommendations went on to state—

1. (d) such a directorate (or division) for Coloured welfare work shall be staffed by Coloureds.

Let us see who noted for this recommendation. It was Mr. A. J. Arendse, Dr. S. I. Arendse, Dr. H. M. Beets, Mr. J. S. Feldman, Mr. Wally Kingwill, Mr. J. E. de V. Loubser, Mr. J. A. Rabie, Prof. C. D. Roode, Prof. S. J. Terreblanche, Prof. E. Theron, Prof. R. E. van der Ross—who was quoted here this afternoon by the hon. member for Bryanston—and Prof. W. B. Vosloo. [Interjections.] Although the Bill does not give effect to the recommendation in regard to one State department, it does give effect to the philosophy behind the recommendation, viz. that welfare should be controlled on a population group basis by the people of each group themselves. Since the hon. members also quoted from the report, they must also have been aware of this, and the fact that the hon. member for Bryanston did not mention it, tells us a great deal about that hon. member’s approach when it comes to public debating.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—104: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bartlett, G. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Conradie, F. D.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. G; Du Plessis, P. T. G; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. G; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, P. S.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Myburgh, G. B.; Niemann, J. J.; Nortje, J. H.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Page, B. W. B.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Pyper, P. A.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raw, W. V.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Sutton, W. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mosselbaai); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vlok, A. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Wood, N. B.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: L. J. Botha, J. H. Hoon, A. van Breda, W. L. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and V. A. Volker.

Noes—16: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Marais, J. F.; Myburgh, P. A.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Widman, A. B.

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.