as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Plural Relations and Development.

Report and proceedings to be printed and considered.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading I indicated that we were opposed to the amendment contained in this clause which seeks to extend the period for a general registration of voters from a maximum of six years to a maximum of ten years. In his reply to the Second Reading, the hon. the Minister pointed out that this was in fact only setting a maximum period and he was therefore not to be taken too seriously. Nevertheless we maintain our opposition to this clause because, although we accept that it is a maximum period that is provided for, the temptation will always be there to allow the matter to linger on until the end of the maximum period. As we indicated during Second Reading, we are of the opinion that this can very well result in the voters’ roll for the Indian community getting into the same sort of mess in which the voter’s roll of the White community ended up. I believe a shorter period will obviously be better.

As I have also indicated during Second Reading, where we are starting off now with a new situation, where there has been an enthusiastic response to the call for registration and where we are starting off with a clean voters’ roll, I believe it will be a great shame if the situation were allowed to deteriorate into one of an untidy voters’ roll. Therefore we believe this is not a good step. We believe the six-year period should be retained, and we are therefore going to vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I fully appreciate the strength of the arguments used by the hon. member for Musgrave. If this were a mandatory provision I would have voted against it myself. I can assure the hon. member of that. However, this is merely to provide for a situation where there is stability in a community and in which a registration every six years will not be necessary if one could avail oneself of that situation. However, I want to assure the hon. member for Musgrave that as things are today, the Indian community is a mobile community. Since we have lifted the restrictions on inter-provincial movement, they are moving, they are changing their places of residence. There is a small migration to the Transvaal…

Why should anybody want to migrate to the Transvaal? [Interjections.]

The Indian community is one of the most intelligent communities we have. They are quite obviously a bit more intelligent than hon. members of the Opposition seem to believe. In all seriousness I must say that, although I believe our ways have parted, the hon. member for Musgrave and I still have a certain respect for each other. I assure the hon. member that it is not the intention of the Government to avail itself of this ten-year period unnecessarily, but only if there is stability. But if things develop as they may well develop, if there is a migration of the Indian people, I anticipate shortening the period to even less than six years. However, should the hon. member vote against this clause, I will understand it. He is concerned about what might happen. I for my part will with equal conviction vote for this clause, because I know this is a provision which will not be abused.

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

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, clause 17 deals with the question of opinion polls. It seeks to place a restriction on opinion polls being conducted between nomination day and election day. This matter has a history and was reviewed in this House last year when we discussed the Electoral Act Amendment Bill, a Bill that came from a Select Committee. It was quite clear that attitudes of the parties and individuals had changed completely when that Bill was introduced here last year. This, I believe, was the history behind the Government inserting any sort of provision to limit the operation of opinion polls. It is a pity that the hon. the Minister, in introducing this piece of legislation, has seen fit to carry this through to a measure relating to the Indian community. We do not see any real objection and do not believe that there are any real grounds for objection to conducting opinion polls. It is generally conceded in most other countries that opinion polls in fact encourage interest in elections and do not have the effect of influencing voters unduly. I therefore think it is a pity that legislation effecting a body that is going to become an elected body should contain this restriction. I want to stress again that we will vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to indicate that we opposed a similar provision in the Electoral Amendment Act in 1978. We still feel that it is completely unwarranted in the society of today that opinion polls should be banned. Therefore we will also vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, permit me, too, to make a few comments with regard to clause 17. I do not believe that the opinion polls held during the previous election were fair. I do not believe that they were conducted correctly and fairly. In the third place, I believe that the opinion polls were conducted to influence the election results. Opinion polls are not of local origin, but were imported. I contend that these opinion polls, as a result of Press freedom and Press monopolies in our country, might be very unfavourable to opponents of those newspapers. I think the NRP discovered this during the last election. Many examples can be quoted of instances where these opinion polls were absolutely wrong in overseas countries. I remember clearly that Sir Harold Wilson, according to an opinion poll, would have lost an election there, but he won. Therefore I want to say that polls can be wrong. Many people who are approached, want to be on the bandwagon. They begin to go along with what is said. The question can be asked why those people should be influenced. For what reason should those people be influenced and in what direction should the influence take place?

We recognize that there are people and organizations that occupy themselves with so-called opinion polls and market surveys. We recognize, moreover, that those people have integrity and that they are sincere in what they are doing. I want to ask whether the people who conduct a poll have been trained to approach the whole matter objectively and whether they are able to put the questions in such a way that they will in no way influence the person being questioned. Experience has shown that questions are put in such a way that the person being questioned can be influenced in such a way that faulty calculations can be made.

However, opinion polls are not completely prohibited in terms of this legislation. The clause merely provides that during the period from nomination day up to and including polling day, no opinion polls shall be made known. It should be remembered that voters can vote by means of special votes from seven days after nomination day. It is only fair to afford political parties the opportunity to fight their causes themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I am unwilling to become involved in a long argument with the hon. members for Musgrave and Durban Central. To my mind the hon. member for Umhlatuzana gave a very good reply to their point of view. We are dealing here with a limited point of dispute, because I believe that we are agreed in principle that we are opposed to any factor in an election campaign which influences people unduly. Here, however, there is a difference of opinion as to whether an opinion poll can influence people unduly. Hon. members opposite believe not, while we on this side of the House are just as convinced that it can influence voters unduly during an election. We are now embodying our opinion in this Bill. Hon. members opposite, however, do not agree, but I know that if this was so, they would have agreed with me. What we have here, then, is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of opinion. How are we going to solve this? It seems to me that we shall simply have to admit manfully that there is a difference of opinion in this regard, that we shall have to accept it and carry it through to the division which will follow. To my mind the hon. member for Umhlatuzana explained the matter very well. I just want to add that opinion polls are not prohibited. They will be permitted for the greater and most important part of the election, until and on nomination day, which is usually between one and three weeks before polling-day. We know that feelings run high during the last few days, that there is excitement and therefore it is not advisable to allow people who may—I do not say that they do—abuse a public opinion poll to influence voters, to do so. In my opinion it is better to avert that danger. Hon. members opposite do not think so, and therefore we shall have to agree to differ.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we dealt with a similar amending Bill concerning Colleges for Advanced Technical Education for Whites. The issue under discussion now is very much identical to what we discussed yesterday. I shall therefore not repeat many of the arguments I advanced yesterday. Suffice it to say that this change of name from College for Advanced Technical Education—better known as CATE—is something that is of course welcomed by us. We see this as more than merely a change of name. It is more than merely trying to produce a shorter name. It must in fact be seen as part of an evolutionary process, which is not just confined to South Africa, but is also evident in the tertiary education system of the Western World from time to time. The problem we have is that whilst we welcome this measure, we still believe that in the mind of the public, and also in the mind of the Indian community, one will still find a certain amount of doubt about the exact place and position of the College for Technical Education within the whole tertiary structure. Whilst we concede that this change could possibly lead to a clearer identification of the college, we would recommend to all who are concerned with education to ensure that the functions of a technikon is clarified in the eyes of the public. There is, unfortunately, always the connotation that anything to do with technical education takes place in an inferior institution.

This Bill deals specifically with one College for Advanced Technical Education viz., the M. L. Sultan College. The M. L. Sultan College is situated within the constituency of Durban Central and I would therefore like to use this opportunity to bring a few matters relating to the M. L. Sultan College to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The Natal Technikon for Whites is situated right next to the M. L. Sultan College and is developing a new campus which borders on the M. L. Sultan College. I am indeed pleased that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs wears more than one cap as he is also the Minister of Community Development. He would know that the Department of Community Development is one of the biggest owners of land in the Durban Central constituency. I therefore want to put the problem of the M. L. Sultan College to the hon. the Minister of Indian Education, and with his officials in the other department which he administers viz. the Department of Community Development, he may be able to solve the problem. As far as I am concerned, the M. L. Sultan College will remain where it is now, because it is ideally situated in the centre of a big metropolitan area and there should never in future be any talk of this college being moved. I believe that the M. L. Sultan College should be allowed, like the White college, to develop its own campus. As far as the availability of space is concerned, I am aware that the moving of Sastri College will be of some help to the M. L. Sultan College. I am prepared to accept that. But one should look further into the future. The Natal Technikon is developing its campus right next to the M. L. Sultan College on 60 acres of ground which they acquired through the kind assistance of the Department of Community Development. So one has the situation that the Department of Community Development was willing and prepared to help the Natal Technikon to develop its campus. I must say that I am very proud of this. Bordering on this campus is the M. L. Sultan College, which is going to acquire Sastri College. There is, however, no land available to develop what I would eventually like to see, and that is its own campus. There is no land available for the real future development of the M. L. Sultan College.

There is an important aspect one must bear in mind in this connection. Where would one get a better shop window for viewing the NP ideology in practice, and it is not my intention to criticize that at the moment. There is where one can best see that ideology being implemented. A R1 million development on the left-hand side, the White technikon, and next to it the M. L. Sultan College. So there one has separate but adjacent facilities, and it is inevitable for one to ask whether those are equal facilities. No matter what the future development may be, that is and will remain a shop window. There people will be able to see how the NP’s policy works in practice. There one has a duplication of facilities on adjacent premises, but I shall not argue that point any further because I do not think that one can do so in terms of this Bill. The hon. the Minister should, however, be aware of this fact. It is no use saying “Look at this fine college” for the one group when people will immediately be able to see what the other group has. The two institutions are there for everyone to see. I want to make the hon. the Minister very conscious of the fact that at the present moment very close by, in block AK, there is property to the value of something like R10 million that has been expropriated through the years. So land is available…

It is standing vacant.

… and it is standing vacant at the moment, but that is another issue. The fact is, however, that I want to make a very sincere plea to the hon. the Minister today for timeous thought to be given to acquiring more land for the M. L. Sultan College so that it can develop a proper campus because I believe that the college is entitled to have a proper campus.

I now want to come to a further specific point. Not far from the college is what is known as Currie’s Foundation which is a sports area. I do not know whether it is true, but I have been reliably informed—the people who have told me should know—that there are moves afoot to have Currie’s Fountain closed down as a sports centre and to have another sports centre developed elsewhere. So right next to the M. L. Sultan College one has Currie’s Fountain, a natural developmental hinterland, preferable even to the block AK section of land which is on the other side of the Greyville racecourse.

You leave the racecourse alone!

Yes, they must leave the racecourse alone, because that is where the hon. member for Umhlanga is losing his money. [Interjections.] On the one side Currie’s Fountain borders on the Natal Technikon’s campus whilst on the other side it borders on the M. L. Sultan College’s land. I know that the Natal Technikon will try its utmost to acquire the Currie’s Fountain land, but I also know that the M. L. Sultan College will also try its utmost to acquire that land.

It has the right name for the Indians too!

Bearing in mind the necessity for future projections, I think the hon. the Minister should start thinking about acquiring additional land. I do not think one should adopt the attitude that we have Sastri College and therefore already enough buildings. We must start thinking about that development because it really would be a shop window for South Africa. It would be a good advertisement if people could see separate but equal facilities there. My plea to the hon. the Minister is therefore to investigate the possibilities. He is the one who can find out if there is any truth in the story about Currie’s Fountain being closed down. If it is true, I should like him, as Minister of Community Development, to back up his claim as Minister of Indian Affairs. In assisting the M. L. Sultan College he would also be assisting South Africa because the NP would then have a very find shop window in which to display its policy. That is the first plea I should like to make today.

The other point I want to raise relates to something I believe can lead to a very interesting and, indeed, exciting development. Yesterday I spoke about the technikons and their relation to universities. Hon. members including the hon. member for Standerton, who is not here at the moment, debated the need to implement the recommendations of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission which in fact advocated links between the universities and the technikons. There is, however, another factor worth considering. We have in Natal two technikons side by side. I deliberately do not want to go into the political argument and ideological reason why the two should be there next to each other. Let us forget about that aspect for the moment Let us accept their proximity to each other. There is a tremendous potential for mutual co-operation between the two technikons. Can you imagine it, Sir: We have there multi-million rand developments next to each other. There can be a tremendous flow of activities between the two. They can share facilities in some respects and give each other assistance. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether any link is contemplated between the M. L. Sultan College and the Natal Technikon. If there is no such link because of legal difficulties, let me say that we are prepared to give the hon. the Minister time off this afternoon to draft another Bill introducing such a link between them. This would fulfil a tremendous need. Mutual interdepartmental committees, etc., could be established and out of that co-operation something great could develop. Each will still have its own campus and institutions as such. I plead with the hon. the Minister to be consciously aware of the need for that, because in that sort of game there will be no losers, but everyone will win. The Indian students and White students will all win if we are prepared to adopt the right approach and accept the reality we have before us there. I think we should do something constructive about that.

As I have said, we in the NRP support the Bill. However, we see more in it than just the changing of a name. Some people find it difficult to pronounce the word “technikon” in Afrikaans, but it does not matter. A new name is being introduced and let us use that opportunity to bring about a new vision for South Africa, something we can all be proud of.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to hon. members on both sides for the way in which they received the Bill. When I moved the Second Reading, I thought that it would hardly evoke any discussion, because the purpose of the Bill is very simple, i.e. to change the name “college for advanced technical education” to “technikon”. This is essentially what it is all about. However, I am glad that this provided the opportunity for such an interesting and constructive little debate. Let me express my thanks here and now to the hon. member for Umlazi for the very detailed history of the college he provided. In places his speech was somewhat contentious, but I do not want to go into that further, because I appreciate the spirit in which the debate was conducted. It really is necessary sometimes that we get historical facts straight for the sake of the record. That was why he made that speech. [Interjections.] My hon. friends opposite are entitled to do the same on another occasion and to put the other side of the matter. In the meantime I should like to assure the hon. member for Umlazi that his speech was interesting, indeed fascinating, and attested to intensive study. I think it is well that it is on record and I want to thank him for that.

The hon. member for Musgrave supported the Bill and put a few questions. One of the questions he put, is in my opinion an important one. He asked me whether further and greater opportunities would be created as regards technical training for Indians. He wondered, for example, what the position in the Transvaal was. The position in this regard is very simple. At the moment the M. L. Sultan College is able to provide for virtually all needs. Except in the coastal areas of Natal where the needs are already being fulfilled, a need for technical education could arise in the midlands of Natal and in the Transvaal. In the midlands of Natal, Indian technical students are being accommodated at the Coloured college in Pietermaritzburg as well as at a college in Mooi River. There are 40 students at the college in Mooi River. That, however, is not yet sufficient justification for the establishment of a branch of the M. L. Sultan College there.

However, should there be growing interest—it is expected that there could be increasing needs in Newcastle—we should very much like to consider first establishing a branch of the M. L. Sultan College and later on an independent college in the midlands of Natal. However, we shall be guided by the existing needs determined by surveys carried out from time to time.

As the hon. member for Umlazi said, we undertook a survey in the Transvaal as well to find out whether such a need existed. We found that there was no real need at the moment justifying the establishment of such an institution, even a branch of the M. L. Sultan College.

What we are doing is to implement our policy, i.e. that no Indian who wants to further his studies and enjoy tertiary education, should be denied this due to a lack of opportunity for him to study the subject of his choice in a college for Indians. In such a case I readily and immediately grant him permission to study at a White or Coloured institution. This is what we shall do in the meantime. However, as soon as there are enough interested Indians to justify a branch of the college or a separate college, we shall establish one. I assure the hon. member for Musgrave that no Indian student will be denied the opportunity to study because he is unable to take the subject he wants to take at the M. L. Sultan College, or a similar college. If it is very inconvenient for him to study the subject at the M. L. Sultan College, we will afford him the opportunity to study elsewhere, even though it is offered at that college.

What is the problem in the Transvaal?

We held a survey in the Transvaal and found that the demand was insufficient to justify it. There are technical schools in the Transvaal which are very popular, but there is as yet insufficient demand for tertiary technical education to justify a branch of the M. L. Sultan College or a separate college. We therefore send the Indians to the M. L. Sultan College, but if that is difficult or impossible for them, we grant them permission to study at a Coloured or even a White college for advanced technical education. That is the policy. However, should there be a demand, we establish their own institution.

The hon. member for Musgrave asked another important and interesting question, and that is whether adequate opportunities are being created for the Indians to enable them to diversify their economic activities. In other words, he asked whether there would be sufficient opportunities for them if they wanted to move in a new direction or practise a new profession or post. I am very glad that he put this question. One of the most interesting aspects of our Indian population is just that they are diversifying their activities in an imaginative and striking way. Originally the Indians came to South Africa as contract labour for the sugar plantations. Later on, when they were allowed to go their own way, the majority went in for retailing or work in the hotel industry, while many of them stayed in the sugar farming industry. During the past few years, thanks to the policy of this side of the House, the opportunities created for them and the educational facilities created for them, they are diversifying their activities, on their own and voluntarily, to such an extent that they, especially the younger generation, are steadily approaching the degree of diversification already existing in the White community. If hon. members look at chapter 3 of the latest report of the Department of Indian Affairs—which deals with economic development—they will see that a table is given indicating how the Indians are moving in new directions. I should like to mention a few examples, based on the figures for 29 April 1978 as compared with the figures for 1975. The number of professional, semi-professional and technical employees rose in that space of less than three years from 11 564 to 15 728. Clerical employees increased from 40 558 to 47 343. Employees in transport, delivery and communication increased from 11 198 to 13 151. Employees employed in the processing of timber, furniture, etc., increased from 1 441 to 1 859. Employees employed in the manufacture of clothes and in the textile industry increased from 24 213 to 27 156. The number of labourers in general increased—and this is something Indians have hardly done, except in the past on farms—increased from 10 949 to 37 915. In the metal and engineering trades the number of qualified artisans increased from 538 to 778 and apprentices—and this is even more heartening—from 73 to 242. In the electrotechnical trades the number of artisans decreased from 136 to 67, but the number of apprentices increased—and this is important—from 77 to 248. In the building trade the number of apprentices increased from 650 to 879, although the number of artisans decreased somewhat. In the printing trades the number of apprentices increased from 20 to 44, and in the furniture trades the number of artisans increased from 382 to 826, while the number of apprentices increased from 34 to 71. There are many other figures in the report, but I do not want to overdo it now. I think hon. members will agree with me that there are clear signs that we are dealing here with an increase in the number of students. I am grateful, therefore, that the hon. member for Musgrave mentioned these points, because it is interesting if we can exchange views about this. This indicates something to me which I find very encouraging, and that is that the Indian community is continuing to fulfil an important and more diversified role in the economy and economic life of South Africa. I believe that all four parties in this House have one thing in common, and that is that we want the best for all the people in South Africa. All of us want them to make a good contribution to life in South Africa, and we want them to be rewarded according to the quality of their contribution. We have signs of progress among the Indian community in this regard and I believe that all of us will rejoice at this.

The hon. member for Durban Central always makes very practical suggestions. At the moment he is worried about the campus of the M. L. Sultan College, as well as about the future of Sastri College, something he merely touched on today, but which he has discussed in detail on other occasions. Sastri College will now have to make way for the M. L. Sultan College. However, I feel very strongly that the name “Sastri” has a special meaning for the Indian community. I think we would be making a mistake, and failing to appreciate their history and sentiment if we erased this name in regard to education in South Africa. I am therefore negotiating with the Indian leaders, with the Executive of the Indian Council, negotiations which, as the hon. member will well understand, I would not like to anticipate.

In the course of this year, and not later than next year, we shall identify an appropriate institution which will be given the name of Sastri to enable this name to remain part of the educational history of South Africa. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member. The inevitable progress of certain institutions sometimes necessitates sacrifices on the part of other institutions, and Sastri College now has to make such a sacrifice, but I should like to give the name Sastri to an appropriate institution in the future, in consultation with the Indian community. The area of the Sastri College will now have to satisfy certain aims of the M. L. Sultan College. There are of course other possibilities, possibilities to which the hon. member has referred. There are other institutions near Sastri College, institutions which we might consider moving elsewhere and thus creating more room for the M. L. Sultan College. Then there is the interesting idea of the sports area at Currie’s Fountain. I am not aware that Currie’s Fountain might no longer be a sports area. If so…

There is already talk of that.

Very well, if there is talk of that, and it does in fact happen, the Department of Community Development will immediately look carefully at Currie’s Fountain. I can assure the hon. member that the suggestions he made, viz. that we should once again examine the needs of the M. L. Sultan College and the Natal Technikon, will be borne in mind. It seems logical that the fine area at Currie’s Fountain might be suitable since it is situated within striking distance from the two technikons. We must consider whether the needs of the two technikons cannot be satisfied by making that area available to them. They can then share the area. I shall consult with the hon. the Minister of National Education and the Department of Community Development to see what can be done to assure the future of the M. L. Sultan College and its future development by the use of land which is made available in this manner.

How will you bring about co-operation between the M. L. Sultan College and the Natal Technikon?

I shall have to do it by liaising with the hon. the Minister of National Education. It is, in fact, his responsibility. He and I are, however, very good friends and I promise to speak to him. We shall see what we can do as far as liaison is concerned. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Oh, pardon me. I thought the hon. member was referring specifically to the question of the acquisition of land at Currie’s Fountain.

No, I am speaking about co-operation in general.

There is very good cooperation between the various institutions. As I have already explained to the hon. member for Musgrave, even a White, if he wants to follow a course which he cannot easily follow at one of his own colleges, can be allowed to do that course at the college of another community if possible. This will even be the case between the Natal Technikon and the M. L. Sultan Technikon. If there is a good reason why a White student should study at a technikon for Indians, or why an Indian student should study at the Natal Technikon, it will happen. As far as co-operation at the academic level is concerned, the exchange of teaching staff, of experience, of knowledge, of curricula, I can assure hon. members that there is, in fact, co-operation. As Minister of Indian Affairs I believe that I have the full support and co-operation of my department. I also believe that we have the full support and co-operation of the Department of National Education. We shall strive to make that cooperation even more wholehearted and productive in the interests of technical education in South Africa.

I am glad that the hon. member raised the issue. It is good for us to discuss these things with one another and to hear one another’s standpoints. I believe that in this field there is no difference between the wish of the hon. member and my endeavour. Therefore I am glad that the hon. member mentioned the matter.

I believe that we have now had such a pleasant discussion that I am almost certain that hon. members will support all stages of the Bill. I hope there will be no further misunderstanding between us. Whatever the lesser differences may be, we do have one thing in common, and that is to ensure that the technical potential of all communities in South Africa be developed to the utmost in the interests of our common fatherland, South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned late last night, the Second Reading debate was proceeding in a very peaceful atmosphere. At that stage I was on the point of indicating to hon. members of this House why this Bill, which was introduced by the hon. the Deputy Minister, was not being accepted by the Opposition parties without any protest. At that stage I referred to the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition. The hon. member for Yeoville did not really state what his objections were based on; he merely wanted the Bill referred to a Select Committee. The hon. member for Wynberg spoke at length and we are still trying to determine what he was opposed to. I think that one can basically accept that he is simply opposed to the Bill as such. The hon. member for Durban Point was opposed to clause 3, which concerns the introduction of a group life insurance scheme.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South should be quiet for a moment, because I shall come to him presently. He stated that he did not really know what his leader was opposed to, but, in any case, he was opposed to clause 2.

I think that it would be good for all hon. members of this House if I had a personal discussion with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, since the hon. member for Durban Point saw fit to absent himself and the hon. member for Yeoville probably had enough last night. It is important to note the provisions and the contents of clause 2 of this Bill, and I want the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South to go and explain it to his people. Unlike his colleagues, the hon. member was very positive in his attitude last night. The hon. member stated that he himself was involved in a commando. However, he said one thing which I found a little objectionable. He stated that he—like other rich farmers in the vicinity—had a foreman on his farm. He asked how he could allow his foreman to be called up for a camp lasting longer than five days a year. I want to ask the hon. member whether it is his idea of patriotism to be unwilling to allow his own foreman to go to a training camp for a period of 19 or 30 days a year or, if he gets an extension, within two years. [Interjections.] This is the patriotism being advocated in this House. This is the way in which the Defence Force is being supported.

Nevertheless I can explain to the hon. member what the Bill involves. If the hon. member does not understand what I am saying, I shall repeat it in English. [Interjections.] Initially I want to say that two categories of people are involved here. We are dealing here with people who have not yet been ballotted, but who would like to undergo training. They voluntarily join the commandos.

I did not understand that.

I shall come back to the hon. member. I do not blame him for not understanding Afrikaans.

*In the second place we are dealing with people who have already undergone their training, people who, in terms of section 22(3) of the Act, have already undergone their 24 months’ training, who have had their 240 days’ training and who now, in addition, want to join the commandos on a voluntary basis. These are the two categories of people we are dealing with. In the S.A. Defence Force there are now two bodies which they can join, either the Citizen Force or the commandos. The difference between a volunteer in the commandos and in the Citizen Force is simply that when a member of the Citizen Force wants to resign, he has to give notice of that intention in terms of the provisions of section 19 of the Act. However, one cannot read section 19 without also reading regulation 22 in chapter 4 of the general regulations. There it is laid down that such a person has to give three months’ notice in writing before he can receive his certificate of discharge. The hon. member understands that.

As regards the volunteer who has joined the commandos, section 44(2) provides that he also has to give notice of his intention to resign. Regulation 22 applies to him as well, so he also has to give three months’ notice of his intention. However, there is one difference: He does not wait for a certificate of discharge. Therefore, his discharge does not have to be given to him. When his three months’ notice has expired, his service is automatically terminated. All we want to achieve with clause 3 of the Bill is to bring about parity. We want these two volunteers to leave the service in the same way. This is all we want.

Were there any problems in this regard?

I am now going to discuss the problems. If there had not been any problems, surely we should not have come to this House with this legislation. However, I am now going to explain it to the hon. member; he must just take it easy. The following situation could arise: The commanding officer of a commando may not be there when such a volunteer’s three months have expired. In other words, he cannot check whether the volunteer has returned everything which was issued to him. He cannot check whether the rifle and other equipment have been returned undamaged. However, these are not important factors. I should like to sketch a much greater problem. Those who are interested in the Defence Force, like the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, will fully realize that the commandos have become an integral part of the Defence Force as such in a sophisticated way. This took place under the leadership of our present hon. the Minister of Defence. The hon. member will probably recall the days when one did a bivouac over a weekend. That was when we used to fire such a lot of 303 bullets from 1942-’43 that the bush caught alight, and after that had a lovely braaivleis together. Those days are past. Today we are no longer fighting against pangamen, but against people who have sophisticated weaponry. The commandos are being integrated with the rest of the Defence Force in such a way that there is no longer a second-class serviceman in the Defence Force. Commando members these days are first-class servicemen, and for that reason we need longer training periods today.

Are you saying that there are second-class men in the Defence Force at present?

No. On the contrary. I am saying that there are no second-class servicemen in the Defence Force. They cannot be second-class, and for that reason we cannot afford to train our defence men during weekends over three or five days. Modern weapons and military exercises have compelled us to integrate these men into the total training. Such a military exercise is no longer arranged at 14 days’ notice; it is arranged months, and sometimes years, in advance in order to fit in with the exercises of other companies.

By the men themselves?

Yes. Of course this is done by the men themselves. Surely the hon. member knows that if a company has to go to the border and is short of a platoon, the commanding officer of such a company is entitled to request a commando to put a platoon at his disposal which he can take along with him. Is this correct?

He cannot take the farmers.

I shall come to that, because I think that is the negativity in the hon. member’s argument. For example, where a commanding officer has arranged an exercise for his men months in advance, the following could happen: Let us suppose, for argument’s sake, that the exercise will be over 30 days. Let us also suppose that this exercise will take place from 20 October to 10 November. However, a member of the commando gave notice of his resignation on 1 August, so that his notice period of three months will expire at the end of October, and, therefore, in the middle of this military exercise. This man who resigns could be a key figure in the military exercise. The hon. member knows, and other hon. members who are interested also know, that this could be the commanding officer’s adjutant, his RSM or quartermaster. He is now in the middle of a military exercise and he now has to let the commando member go. All we are saying now…

I agree with that.

But of course. After all, the hon. member is a reasonable person. All we are asking is that the commanding officer should not be placed in a quandary where he has to accept a resignation at an inopportune time while his hands, figuratively speaking, are tied. This is all we are asking and the hon. member cannot disagree with that. This is the only reason why the commanding officer wants the right to be able to tell a commando member that his resignation is accepted, but that his discharge cannot be issued there in the field and that he should wait till the end of the training period to receive his certificate of discharge. This is what happens in the Citizen Force. We are asking that this should also apply to the commandos. Does the hon. member understand this?

Yes.

But of course. [Interjections.] I am very pleased that the hon. member agrees with me and that he no longer has any problems.

No, you are under a misconception.

We are merely asking that the commanding officer should not be stranded in the middle of an exercise. There is nothing sinister or secret in this legislation. We do not want to make an exception of Natal, because we know that the NRP still enjoys strong support there. [Interjections.] How long this will continue, we do not know, but we have to give the people their due.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South put the problem of a farmer who is called up, but who is unable to answer that call at that stage.

His cow is due to calve!

His cow is due to calve, or it is lambing or harvest time. Surely the hon. member knows that discharge is not at issue there. After all, a volunteer is not going to resign every time that he cannot attend a camp. What does he do? He goes to his commanding officer and says: “Old chap, you know my circumstances.”

If he says “old chap” he will have his head chopped off!

Is the hon. member referring to the top brass in Pretoria to which another hon. member referred last night?

*The relationship between the commanding officer and the commandos is a very solid one. It is a relationship of trust I believe that this also applies in Natal, except where there are many Progs. However, I am convinced that this is also the case in the rest of Natal. I want to tell hon. members that a commanding officer would not be unreasonable if he knew that a commando member’s mealies were ready for harvest. Can he attend a camp at such a time? Of course not. However, this is not a question of resignation, but of exemption. The volunteer in a commando has one additional way of obtaining exemption. If his commanding officer does not like him because he supports the NRP, he still has the right…

We only have NRP supporters in the commandos in Natal.

Very well then, although he is a Nat, he still has the right to go to the Exemption Board. He can still get exemption there. On the other hand, the volunteers in the Citizen Force can only go to the Exemption Board. Therefore, the member of the commando is more privileged than the member of the Citizen Force.

I hope and trust that the misgivings expressed by the hon. the leader of the NRP and the irresponsible statements made by the hon. member for Yeoville will not result in fewer people joining the commandos or in more people resigning. I see the hon. member for Yeoville did not like that, so he left the House. No weakening of this very important arm of our Defence Force can be allowed. Everything possible should be done to expand the commandos, whether offensive or defensive. The days when the commandos were regarded as the Home Guard belong to the past. Today the commandos are an integral part of the Defence Force of South Africa.

Do you not want a home guard?

Rather not an NRP home guard where I am. I should be able to manage on my own there. I want to conclude by saying that I was not here on Monday. On my return from the Transvaal, a shocking newspaper report awaited me, a report which made it clear to me why the official Opposition’s pro-Defence Force member, the hon. member for Yeoville, suddenly began to raise objections. The article I read appeared in The Citizen… [Interjections.]… but I read a similar article in the Rand Daily Mail, if that would satisfy those hon. members more. I quote—

Then it goes on to say—

What does that have to do with this Bill?

I am still dealing with this Bill, but I also want to refer to section 7(2) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, which reads as follows—

If we weigh up these two aspects, surely it is very clear why legislation in connection with the Defence Force, whose commander-in-chief they challenge, cannot be supported by them. However, I want to go further and ask the hon. the Minister not to take the hon. members of the Opposition so far into his confidence. I am saying this because a very ugly thing took place here yesterday. The hon. the Leader of the NRP made use of the fact that he had been called in confidentially by the hon. the Deputy Minister. There he saw a Bill—a Bill which I did not even see—with nine clauses. With great bravado he stated here that he had succeeded in having five of those clauses deleted. This was something he was given to examine confidentially, a man who likes to say that he is ready to sacrifice his life for the Defence Force and his fatherland. Therefore, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister should set about this much more carefully and should not tempt hon. members of the Opposition to give away everything here which was discussed in secret. Similarly, the Chief of the Defence Force should be very careful whom he allows to accompany him to the border as well as whom he allows at defence installations.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you rule that I may not differ any further from the hon. members, I want to conclude by giving the hon. the Deputy Minister the assurance that he has the full support of this side of the House for the passage of this Bill, and I think I am also speaking on behalf of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria East gave us a clear explanation of this legislation. He gave us a lecture on how a person who wants to resign should set about it. He was doing very well and I was impressed by the way he went about it. However, I am afraid that his notes got jumbled at the end of his lecture and that he confused this Bill with South Africa’s Constitution. This is a pity because it marred the lecture he gave us.

Never mind, Uncle Dan, you will understand later.

He is a Prog in disguise.

Upon reading this Bill for the first time, I assumed as a matter of course that it would be accepted without further ado. However, last night, and today as well, I was bitterly disappointed to hear that the discussion was being devoted mainly to resignations from the Defence Force. How negative can one be! In these times in which we are living, one would have expected this debate to serve as encouragement for people who want to join the various units of the Defence Force. However, we have spent most of our time on how one has to set about resigning and the problems one would face if one wanted to or had to resign. It is a very bad thing that we have not availed ourselves of this opportunity of encouraging the general public to join the Defence Force in their hundreds and thousands and to make use of the opportunities which it offers them. I am sure that the men in uniform will also be disappointed when they hear in what vein this debate has been conducted. The men in the Defence Force want to make use of the opportunities offered them to qualify themselves to cope with any eventuality.

If there are problems with resignations—personally I am unaware of them, but I presume that there are other members who are snowed under by requests for assistance from people who cannot obtain their discharge from the Army—I hope that the persons in question will receive the same cooperation which I know other people receive when they have problems. I am sure that they will also find that there is a sympathetic ear for anyone who has a problem, irrespective of whether he wants exemption or his discharge. I do not believe that the problems mentioned here yesterday and today really exist. I just want to warn that we should not raise imaginary problems.

The man in uniform is not concerned about what the position is going to be when he wants to resign. He would prefer to know what the position is while he is serving his country. He wants peace of mind. Particularly those people who do part-time service want the assurance that their jobs at home are safe and will still be available when they go home, and, most important of all, that their families at home are safe. What little experience I have of this has taught me that the men in service are dedicated, that young and old avail themselves of the opportunities and that they are setting about qualifying themselves for the day when “the balloon bursts” in all earnest, as the hon. member for Durban Point put it last night. When their time comes, they want to be in their place and ready for action.

The official Opposition proposed that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Let me say at once that we in these benches are not prepared to support this. We regard that proposal as a waste of time. When it comes to this kind of legislation, we cannot waste time by referring it to a Select Committee. The hon. member for Durban Point pointed out last night—and the hon. member for Pretoria East referred to this a short while ago—that this matter did receive attention. I am really not interested in who did and who did not have the opportunity of examining documents. We have heard that a great deal of attention was given to this Bill and, therefore, we can accept that we have the best possible provisions before us at present. What is important is that it enables more and more people to enter our commandos and Citizen Force. I think that this is of importance.

The question of employers was raised last night, especially by my bench mate, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. He pointed out that certain employers would find themselves in a difficult position if some of their employees had to do military service for a long time. Here, too, what little experience I have of this matter has taught me that if someone has a problem in this regard, he can go to an officer and put his problem to him. I am convinced that they would also be given a sympathetic hearing and that there are no insurmountable problems. However, we should not forget that the time could arrive when we in South Africa could almost find ourselves on a war footing. What would the position be then? If that happened, would we also first consider whether we would be exempted from service or not? I fear that when it comes to the push, everyone will have to contribute his share.

If we examine clause 1, we shall see that provision has been made for “all reasonable facilities”, as it is put there. I think that this covers the problem of our friends who object. I do not believe that unreasonable requests will be made to employers when some of their employees have to do military service. On this occasion I should like to express my appreciation to the employers who have been so willing to give their employees leave in the past and have even encouraged them to undergo military training. I am thinking of the big industrialists, people who have to allow large numbers of their employees at the same time to go and do military service on a full-time basis. When they return, these people discover that they have been very generously treated during their absence. This is an active contribution to the security of South Africa. I think we should give the employer recognition for his attitude to the employees who have to do military service. They realize that this is a contribution they have to make to the security of their country. At the same time, we can also pay tribute to the thousands of volunteers, some of whom have to make great sacrifices in order to serve in the commandos. I have seen that from the working class to university professors, all serve shoulder to shoulder in the commandos. It is encouraging to see how seriously these people regard the cause. We want to thank them. This gives us the assurance that all will be well with us in the future.

With regard to the clause on insurance, I want to say that we in these benches are in complete agreement with it. We are convinced of the necessity of making provision for labour disability once these people have completed their training. This is definitely a step in the right direction. I want to go so far as to say that this will encourage the national serviceman in this early stage of his career to make provision for himself. We are too inclined just to ask. We are always waiting for hand-outs. If the State is capable of financing the insurance itself, we shall accept it. I do not think we should concentrate on this idea only and maintain that it is the State’s obligation. The least that anyone can do is to make provision for himself.

I want to add that if a national serviceman has to finance insurance during his term of training, the insurance should be of such a nature that once he has completed his training and is discharged from service, it should not lapse; he should be able to continue with the paying of premiums. In other words, the contribution which he has made to insurance over a period of two years, for example, will then not be lost and he will be able to keep up that policy for the rest of his life. This will be of great benefit to him till the end of his career.

As far as insurance is concerned, I want to ask for a thorough investigation when the insurance contract is being negotiated. An hon. member expressed his concern yesterday about the fact that there may be companies which may not be able to contribute their share when the compensation has to be paid out. This would mean that the insurers would suffer damage. I think it would be a good thing if this type of insurance were placed in the hands of a consortium so that there would always be a guarantee that the interests of these men will be protected.

Why not the State itself?

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South asks why it cannot be the State itself. Why should the State alone bear the responsibility for this? Particularly in the time of war it could place a great burden on the shoulders of the State because such large sums of money would have to be paid out. However, if the State can afford to do it and it can be done, we find no fault with that. However, if the insurance is handled by an insurance company, I want to suggest that it be left in the hands of a consortium. The benefits of this kind of insurance are enormous. Today we still see veterans of the previous World War who were wounded and returned, but are today experiencing problems in their old age with hospital and chemist’s accounts, etc. They are not well-to-do. If this kind of insurance had been available to them while they served, they could perhaps have derived the benefit from it at this stage.

Another aspect of the insurance—I think the hon. member for Yeoville referred to it—is that there are certain people who have conscientious objections to insurance. I do not want to defend this at all. I really cannot understand the arguments of someone who can object against insurance, because, after all, it is in his own interest. However, there are, in fact, people who have objections against life insurance on the basis of their religious beliefs. In this regard I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister that the question of whether exemption from this insurance can be given to these people be investigated. This may, in fact, cause a problem if it is done without proper control, but I think if we can negotiate with specific denominations about this matter, and specific denominations give the Department of Defence the assurance that the church as such has objections against this—and after all we do know which churches these various national servicemen belong to—exemption could perhaps be given to them with regard to insurance. I am just mentioning this, but I do not feel strongly about this matter myself because I think everyone should be pleased to have the opportunity of insurance. However, if the people do have objections, we should at least go into them and give them the exemption if they are sincere about the matter.

This is more or less how this side of the House sees this matter. We welcome this legislation and give it our full support.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. He made a substantial contribution and he was also very positive about the Defence Force. In the past we have observed that that party, which is still a small party, is very positive in respect of the Defence Force. We thank them for that.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must be complimented on his actions in respect of this legislation, on having consulted as widely as possible in the interests of South Africa so that, through hard work, the best legislation could be introduced for our Defence Force. His intention in consulting in this way was to prevent defence legislation from being dragged into the political arena. I want to thank him for having had this intention with the consultation in respect of the legislation before us today.

But what do we find after the NP tried its best to keep the Defence Force out of politics? I am surprised and regretful that I have to say that the hon. member for Durban Point tried his best to derive petty political advantage from the fact that he was involved in the consultation on this legislation.

No, I welcomed it.

By implication the hon. member said that he was very pleased to be able to say that there had been nine or ten clauses, but that through his instrumentality there were now only four or five. This implies that it is owing to that party that our people, our country and our Defence Force are not being exposed to the elements drafted by the NP. That is politicking. It is reprehensible and I want to state the factual situation. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Durban Point is trying to imply that his party prepares defence legislation for this country, I want to say that it is not true. The NP has not yet abdicated its leadership and its government. If that hon. member is involved in consultation, it is done merely for the sake of consultation.

Were you here when I spoke?

Not only was I here, but I also took the further step of looking up the hon. member’s Hansard. I have it here with me and that is what the hon. member said. Does he deny that he said it? Not a word! Zipped!

He does not know what he said.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether I did not say that a Select Committee was unnecessary because we had already had full consultations and talks?

I cannot go into that verbatim. In any case the hon. member addressed the House in English.

Are you unable to understand English?

I am dealing with the implication of what the hon. member said. For that party, which is involved in a life-and-death struggle at by-elections in Natal, it was impossible to resist dragging the Defence Force, our soldiers, into politics. I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for Pretoria West who said that the hon. the Deputy Minister should begin to give serious thought to whether we can allow politics to be dragged in by implication in this underhand and cunning way. What are the facts, the true facts, of the matter? I think the country ought to know that the NP is governing South Africa. No one has the interests of the soldier more at heart than the NP. What there is to be done for the soldier, the NP will do if it is in the soldier’s interests. I think it should also be said that the NP is not governing this country for itself. The NP is not an end in itself. The NP is governing South Africa on behalf of all the citizens of the country. That is why the NP does not think only of Natal. It thinks of the entire country. From the speeches made by hon. members opposite it was apparent that not one of them was breaking a lance for the Defence Force or for the commandos, but for the Natal commandos and for the Natal’s Defence Force.

No!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, and other hon. members of the Opposition, can read in Hansard precisely what they said. They did nothing else but plead for the interests of their “old boys”. They spoke only of their “old boys” in Mooi River and elsewhere. They spoke only of the “Natal Stand”. Why?

Nonsense!

They did so merely for the sake of politics.

Go and read the Hansard.

I have read the Hansard. But there is a second aspect I want to refer to. I want to refer to it because it is important. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said that “the top brass in Pretoria do not appreciate” the old men who are still trying to play their part. Surely that is not true. Surely that is just not true. But what is the hon. member trying to achieve in this way? What is he trying to achieve by saying that the commanding officers have no interest in people who are volunteers in the commandos? What is the hon. member trying to achieve? Is he seeking to bring about unanimity and to strengthen the Defence Force so that the people can fight together, or is what he said in fact aimed at bringing about mistrust in the leaders of the Defence Force? I realize of course that the hon. member did not know what he was saying. He is shaking his head now. But that is precisely what he said. Perhaps the hon. member should be a little more careful before he sucks things out of his thumb.

The hon. member even said the following. He said he had trained volunteers and he knew that they were very difficult people to get along with. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South had the following to say about these volunteers. (Hansard, 28 March 1979)—

In the first place the hon. member blamed the “top brass” for being, as he said, completely wrong. However, the hon. member is wrong.

Read the next sentence.

The next aspect is this. The hon. member is criticizing his own people. He says his own people are not fit.

Read the next sentence.

The hon. member wants to hear the next sentence. Very well, I shall read out the next sentence.

And the next one as well.

No, wait a minute. [Interjections.] No, I have in fact offered to read the next sentence. However, I did not offer to read the whole speech. [Interjections.] I shall read the next sentence—

That is what the hon. member said in the next sentence. Consequently he is shooting down his own voters. [Interjections.] He says they think they are generals. [Interjections.]

A few years ago I still wore a military uniform. One day, however, I was having tea with a few of the men. I had just received promotion, and one of the men looked at me in a rather superior way and asked: “What is your rank now?” I then told him that I had been given the rank of captain a short while ago. His reply was: “Oh, I am the stuff that generals are made of.” Another chap let fly and told him: “Yes indeed, I believe that, but you will start at the bottom.” That is the position with hon. members of the Opposition. They all want to be generals, particularly in the House, but they are not prepared to start at the bottom rung of the ladder. That is the situation in which they find themselves.

I want to make it very clear that hon. members on this side of the House, and I in particular, have the greatest appreciation for the services the commandos are rendering, and specifically the defensive elements in the commandos. However, we must not make the fatal mistake of thinking that a volunteer cannot be classified as a soldier. A volunteer is a soldier and he is treated as such. He is not a prima ballerina or a primadonna. Hon. members on that side of the House pictured a volunteer as a person who has to be accorded special treatment, like a prima ballerina. It does not work like that. A person joins up as a volunteer, not because he has to be dealt with as an exceptional person, but because he wants to defend his country.

We would do well to examine why a person joins up. Does he do so to belong to a shooting club, to have a royal time, because he then has a rank, or so that he can be disciplined and trained to defend his country? That is the situation. There are two principles in the Defence Force which one always bears in mind. The one is known as the RC factor, that resistance to change factor. However, there are some people who want to approach the present psychological war on a Second World War basis. There is simply no place for such people. The other principle that the best trained soldier lives the longest. These are the two factors which the hon. member must bear in mind when he discusses the defensive elements of the commandos. I do not believe that any person who has joined the commandos on a voluntary basis, even in Natal, wants to enjoy special concessions. Everyone wants to receive the best training so that he can survive the longest and serve his nation. I think it would perhaps be a good thing if the hon. members who come from Natal were to ask their voters whether they approve of what they said in the House. The voters will tell the hon. members that they will not vote for them since they blow hot and cold. For the NP there is only one Defence Force, and not various sections of the Defence Force, of which the one is more important than the other.

The “top brass” to whom hon. members on that side of the House referred so disparagingly…

You are talking rubbish now.

If the hon. member wishes to condemn himself out of his own mouth, it is his business. Those people, the “top brass”, are in fact establishing the defensive elements. Consequently it cannot be said that they are opposed to the defensive elements. Surely that does not make any sense.

When I look at the attacks the PFP have made on principle, it is very clear to me that hon. members of that party approached the matter on a different basis. The basis of the NRP is to play politics with a view to by-elections. The basis of the PFP is to speak about money, because they are a rich man’s party. All the hon. members are now shaking their heads and are astonished, but it is the truth. They are the “fat cats”.

Clause 1 deals with the employer and employees. On whose side are hon. members on that side of the House? They only discussed the position of the employer. I have nothing against the employer—I shall still come to that—but I want to point out the approach of the PFP. They do not care about the financial interests of the soldier and they do not discuss it. They discuss the financial interests of the employer. Not once in their arguments did those hon. members refer to the patriotism which an employee feels when he wants to play his part, nor did they refer to the patriotism which is expected of an employer in making the necessary reasonable facilities available to his employees. It was clearly apparent that they were not thinking in that direction. To them it was a matter of rands and cents.

When one takes a closer look at the provisions of the legislation, one sees that the NP strikes a balance between military power on the one hand and economic strength on the other. We must also take into consideration the political power and the morale of the people. These four factors run like a golden thread through the clauses of this Bill.

Clause 1 provides that an employer shall provide his employees with reasonable facilities if they have to undergo their military training. I want to make it clear that in accordance with the standpoint of this side of the House, it has always been the intention that the volunteer should also be protected. The idea has never been that the volunteer should not be protected. In our opinion the volunteer is an important element in the entire defence set-up. Thus the clause is being amended ex abundanti cautela to make doubly sure that there can be no doubt in regard to this matter.

I want to make it very clear that we feel that the economic interests of the employer are terribly important. He is an entrepreneur and the person who creates labour opportunities and who takes upon himself the risk of investing capital. We understand his situation, and the NP is not opposed to the p>entrepreneur. On the contrary, we want to protect him as far as we can, because he is indispensable to us. Similarly I want to make it very clear that the employee—he is the volunteer—is very important to the Defence Force since he is a trained man who can take the lead and train others. Therefore, we also need his services very badly.

We must accept that when a person joins the Defence Force as a volunteer, he not only sacrifices his freedom and a financial income, but he also experiences a great deal of discomfort since he is going to be away from home for a period. He sleeps in the veld where the mosquitoes torment him at night—I am saying this for the sake of those hon. members who have never slept outside—and during the day he has to contend with ticks and snakes. That is the type of problem such a volunteer has to contend with. We must not think that it is always physically pleasant for him to render this service, but it is a duty which he has taken upon himself. I believe that when one requests an employer to make reasonable facilities available and to display a reasonable attitude in allowing such a person to join as a volunteer to render service, no reasonable person could have any objection to that. We believe that when a person wishes to do active service on behalf of South Africa, in other words if he is a patriot of the highest degree, we should not make it difficult or impossible for him to exercise his human right to fight for his nation.

A great deal has been said about clause 2 of this Bill and in my opinion the provisions contained therein have been greatly clarified. There is very little I want to say about it; perhaps just that our commando members are very proud of the training they have undergone. They want to render service. They are people who would like to say that they are prepared and can be placed on a par with any other branch of the Defence Force; and that is indeed the case. Commando members have undergone the same training and courses as other branches of the Defence Force. They are motivated people and I can foresee the day when the commanding officers of the commando units are going to request that they want to be treated in exactly the same way as the Citizen Force as far as discharge is concerned. These commando units are just as important in our defence structure as the Citizen Force. I foresee the day when they are not going to be satisfied with what we are now offering them in terms of clause 2 and when they are going to ask to be treated in precisely the same way as the Citizen Force. I think it will be a happy day when it comes.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South quoted from a circular sent out by a commander. The hon. member said that promises were made. I should like to tell him in this connection that what is stated in the legislation is precisely the same as the commander wrote in his circular.

But then surely we have no quarrel.

Why, then, did the hon. member quarrel about this? The hon. member was insulting to the “top brass” and quarrelled with everyone. I now want to quote hon. members what is stated in paragraph 6 of the circular which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South quoted—

However, he went on to say—

Sir, it is the same situation here. A person is not discharged before his equipment has been returned. Hon. members must understand very clearly that I am not saying that the commander was justified in writing as he did. What he wanted under the circumstances is now being achieved with this amendment. Since this is the situation, we are in agreement with it.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entirely satisfied with the four days and the 15 days; in other words, with the method of exercise as it is applied in Natal, for that is the problem which the farmers in Natal and farmers in general experience?

When a person joins, he is bound to the existing regulations. These regulations are not of retrospective effect Consequently when a person joins up, the then existing regulations and not subsequent regulations remain applicable to him because they are not retrospective. That means, therefore, that if a person joined up under the old regulations, those regulations are still applicable. Does the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South honestly think that the training of the defensive element of the commandos can take place properly with four days uninterrupted training and subsequent bivouacs? Does he really think that all the aspects of training can be covered? He, as an honest man, will have to agree that proper training cannot be given.

No, it is not true.

Those are at present the rules and regulations. If circumstances change, the rules and regulations will also change. However, I leave them in the hands of the “top brass” with the fullest confidence. In this respect I differ with the hon. member. Consequently this aspect will be considered according to circumstances.

In regard to the insurance aspect referred to in section 3, I want to refer briefly to a few matters. It is not very clear to me whether the State can act as insurer vis-à-vis a soldier. In terms of the insurance laws an insurable interest is necessary before another person’s life can be insured. However, this is a legal point and it can be changed. A further aspect is that the police also comprise a very important part of our entire defence and security set-up. As far as I am aware, the police pay for their own insurance. As far as I am aware, the entire Public Service also pays for its own insurance. As I understand the situation, all persons who are employees of the State have up to this juncture paid for their own insurance. An attack was launched here on the principles of insurance, while this principle had never been broached in regard to the Police. If it has not been broached in regard to other aspects, why should the principle suddenly be dragged into the arena here? There have never been any pangs of conscience over this principle, but suddenly it has been broached now. I think it is politicking, the more so because they cannot complain about the money the soldier is receiving. They cannot complain about that, because the hon. the Minister of Defence saw to it that the salaries of national servicemen were increased from R33 per month to almost R100 per month. So they cannot complain that these men do not have the money and are consequently arguing about a principle which does not exist. Like the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, I therefore believe that we can trust the Defence Force to look after people who have conscientious objections to insurance and other aspects, if that is in fact necessary. The idea is not to hurt anyone. The idea is to help the men of the Defence Force, because it is our duty to help them. In fact, the NP want to help them, and consequently I am again asking the SAP to agree that we should help them.

I come now to clause 4, dealing with the auxiliary services. I think that there was perhaps insufficient discussion of the auxiliary services. In terms of this clause the code of discipline may now be applied to all members of the auxiliary services. But why is this being done? Members of the auxiliary services in South West Africa and elsewhere are doing very good work, and I want to praise them for their competence and motivation in the battlefields. Many of those people, however, do not have what it takes to be included in the Citizen Force, the commandos or the Permanent Force. Despite the fact that they are excellent soldiers, that is nevertheless the situation. Up to now it has been the case that they have had their own code of discipline, as it were, in terms of which they acted. However, if a soldier is far away on the border, it is administratively very difficult to allow two systems of discipline to exist side by side, the code of discipline for the Defence Force and another type of disciplinary code for the auxiliary services. This simply cannot work. As a result of these circumstances, this clause is being introduced and now the same code of discipline applies to everyone. If there is one thing a soldier would like to have in order to boost his morale, it is to be able to say that he is proud of his unit because the discipline there is excellent. A soldier has always been proud of his discipline. Here we are now giving those people something to be proud of, and I am certain that they will accept it with acclamation and have particular appreciation for it. In this way I consequently want to thank them very much for what they have done.

Finally, I should just like to review the situation. This legislation strikes a very good balance and I do not want to say in spite of the consultation but as a result of the good work the Nationalists did when the Deputy Minister spoke to them as well. They achieved this and we have to say thank you very much. We also have to say thank you for the fact that consideration is being given to the security of the national servicemen and that the voluntary member of the commando is being brought much closer to the position of the Citizen Force members. That is what he wants because he is a patriot and he will join to defend this country which is also very dear to him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my sincere thanks to all the hon. members who have made a very positive contribution to this debate. I am thinking in particular of hon. members on this side of the House, who all raised points which were worth listening to. By this I do not mean to imply, however, that other hon. members did not raise interesting points. From the nature of the criticism which came from the opposite side, of course, I may have to reply in greater detail to what they said.

I want to associate myself at once with the last idea expressed by the hon. member for Pretoria West, who said that it was the work of this side of the House which largely contributed to the formulation of this Bill. In saying that, I do not wish to detract from the contribution made by the hon. member for Durban Point. I shall reply to that. The fact is that during the discussions held on this Bill, it was the considered standpoint of the members of the National Party who had been invited to participate in them that the commando system was increasing in importance and that, secondly, the volunteer in the commandos and the Citizen Force was so important, as far as the leadership corps and the question of experience were concerned, that we should act with circumspection in their case and should make sure that while on the one hand, we have to serve the best interests of the Defence Force and the economy, we must on the other hand also take into consideration the personal circumstances of the volunteers. This is a very complicated aspect. The fact that we decided to suggest that regulations be used—and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to this—proves that we want to enable the older volunteer who still wants to serve and to defend home and hearth to do it in such a way that it will suit his personal circumstances, that we want to encourage him to fulfil his wish to serve his country and to protect his neighbourhood and that we want to ensure that we do not send him elsewhere if that would inconvenience him personally. That is the way we want to approach it. The regulation we envisage in this connection has resulted directly from the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Waterkloof. The hon. member for Pretoria West, an experienced member of the Citizen Force, also made suggestions concerning the volunteers and volunteer officers. These are ideas which we eventually embodied in this Bill. The hon. member for Durban Point supported these viewpoints throughout and sometimes took the initiative in other respects.

I had not intended to discuss this matter in detail, but unfortunately it has become necessary, in order to restore the balance, to prove that as far as legislation is concerned, we try to take into consideration all standpoints which are justifiable and which are in the interests of the various groups, in order to arrive at the best possible result.

I am sorry that the question has been raised of which clauses have been omitted. Certain clauses did in fact fall away after they had been tested against the various criteria we worked out with the assistance of members on this side of the House in co-operation with members of the Opposition parties. The point made by the hon. member for Pretoria West was therefore to some extent justified. It is justified in the sense that if we are to achieve consensus in this House, we have to consult outside the House, and we should not discuss particulars concerning the consultations in public in this House. At times, these concern sensitive matters. As regards the clauses which have fallen away, we have decided that they would not serve their purpose. The question has been asked which clauses have fallen away. Let me say that there is nothing sinister about them. All I want to say is that in the interests of the Defence Force, the economy and the personal circumstances of the individuals concerned, some of the clauses have been omitted. These are the norms we applied. I do not think they could be faulted. However, it would be easy to give a different connotation to them. Therefore I want to assure the hon. members that we intend to consult with hon. members of the Opposition parties in the tradition of the hon. the Prime Minister as Minister of Defence. I think this is the right thing to do and it is in the interests of South Africa. They have made a valuable contribution. In any event, they do represent some constituencies in Natal.

Those hon. members of the Opposition who participated in the debate made a valuable contribution, but I must say that some of these amendments, omissions and regulations are the result of personal views and persuasions of hon. members on this side of the House. In this connection I want to say that we shall continue consulting. It is a pity that the hon. member for Wynberg is not here. The hon. member for Yeoville apologized for his absence. In this spirit we shall take the official Opposition with us.

In reply to the nonchalant warning given to me by the hon. member for Wynberg, I want to say that it leaves me cold. He can be as dramatic as he likes about this matter, but if it is in the interests of the Defence Force and other parties, including the economic sector, we shall go through with it. If they want to discuss things with us, we shall consult them. However, we cannot consult on conditions laid down by the official Opposition alone. The hon. member for Durban Point never displayed that attitude or adopted that standpoint. I want to give him credit for that. This will be our approach, therefore, but we cannot do it on conditions laid down by hon. members on that side of the House alone. Let us differ with one another and have fruitful debates in this House. After all, we must keep our hand in, or sheer peaceableness will be our undoing. I can see the hon. member for Wynberg is being trained. I am sorry that I have to talk to him in his absence. He is being trained by the hon. member for Yeoville. It seems to me that he wants to retire, for which I do not blame him. In the meantime, he is training the hon. member for Wynberg, and we should like to assist in his training in the interests of the Defence Force. We should like to address a few admonitory remarks to him. His voice was well-modulated during his speech last night, and the punctuation was correct, but his attack on the hon. member for Ladybrand was futile. I think the hon. member for Wynberg should allow us to help him with the drafting of his speech. I shall come back to that shortly and illustrate it. However, I want to make the statement that in this kind of debate, we need not break with one another or differ so sharply that all ties are irreparably severed. When we reprove one another, we do so in the spirit which is characteristic of the political parties to which we belong and which is characteristic of the debates conducted in this House. I cannot see why the hon. member for Wynberg reacted in that way. He referred to a previous debate during which I pointed out some aspects to him in a very courteous way. Now they say that I have brought politics into the debate—but after all, we are politicians—and have not confined myself to the Defence Force. I am sorry that the hon. member interpreted it that way, because it will happen again. The hon. member for De Aar made a fine contribution here. He was humorous, etc., but he said nothing which could have caused such behaviour on the part of any of the parties in this House as we had from the hon. member for Wynberg yesterday. I now want to leave the matter at that.

I want to assure the hon. member for Yeoville, who has just entered the House, that we intend to continue with our courteous consultation and with the recognition given to the contributions made by the Opposition parties, but on our conditions, and not on the conditions of the hon. members for Yeoville and Wynberg.

I come now to the question of a Select Committee as requested by the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville has just been called out again, so I shall leave it at that for the moment and say later why I do not think his request for a Select Committee is appropriate.

I therefore return to the attack made on the hon. member for Ladybrand by the hon. member for Wynberg. The attack was to the effect that I should repudiate the hon. member for Ladybrand. I refuse to do so. I shall tell you why. The hon. member for Ladybrand discussed only one clause, i.e. clause 1, which makes it quite clear that employers may not discriminate against employees. That was the hon. member’s main contribution and main argument. He could not talk about anything else, because that is what it is exclusively concerned with. The insertion concerns volunteers. The hon. member for Wynberg attacked the hon. member for Ladybrand and said that the hon. member for Ladybrand had referred to employers who discriminate and that there should be prosecutions. The implication is that the hon. member for Wynberg was implying that the hon. member for Ladybrand was aware of such cases. Even if he were aware of such cases, surely it is not for him to institute a prosecution. At the same time, the hon. member for Wynberg argued that there is a statutory provision which prohibits discrimination against volunteers. That was his standpoint He said the hon. member for Ladybrand should have had a prosecution instituted or should apologize if there are no such employers. However, that party’s objection is that it is a new principle. How on earth can he attack the hon. member for Ladybrand on an old principle which is already contained in the Act? He devoted half an hour to an attack on the hon. member for Ladybrand, and upon entering the debate he said that the principle was new, but in spite of that he attacked the hon. member for Ladybrand on the basis that it is an old principle. I therefore refuse to repudiate the hon. member for Ladybrand.

I now come back to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. As regards his proposal that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee, we unfortunately cannot accept that. The hon. member’s main argument is that it is the tradition that legislation of this nature be referred to a Select Committee. The hon. member was in this House in 1976, so he knows that the legislation was not referred to a Select Committee then. The principal amendments concerned war-time service and so on. In 1977, legislation was again introduced, and this was not referred to a Select Committee either. I am talking about the amendment with regard to the 240 days.

Both the Defence Acts.

To crown it all, however, the Moratorium Amendment Bill was introduced in this House last year—the hon. member for Durban Point will remember it—and this side of the House did its homework. We put our heads together and came to the conclusion that the Bill should go to a Select Committee, because it could perhaps be improved upon technically. The hon. member for Durban Point supported us, but the hon. member for Yeoville said that the Bill need not go to a Select Committee. We then voted to determine whether the Bill was to go to a Select Committee or not. The Bill was then sent to a Select Committee…

That just confirms the tradition.

The hon. member for Yeoville voted against it. After consideration by the Select Committee, a virtually new Bill was introduced, so thoroughly had that Select Committee examined it. Then the hon. member for Yeoville waxed lyrical about the good work which the Select Committee had done, although he had said at the beginning that it was not necessary to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Therefore the opinion of the hon. member for Yeoville as to whether or not a Bill should be referred to a Select Committee is not acceptable to us. I am not saying it is not reliable, but I am putting it mildly by saying that it is not acceptable to us. I think the hon. member should trust us with the assistance we are offering him these days. We know he is working very hard and he has to give a great deal of attention to other matters, such as financial matters. In fact, he is working the hardest of anyone in the PFP hierarchy. Under such circumstances, one’s judgment does become somewhat clouded at times. Since we paid such eloquent tribute, through the mouth of the hon. member for Worcester, to the good qualities of the hon. member for Yeoville, I want to add that we want to help him in this connection. When we give him good advice, he must accept it. This Bill is not of such a nature that it should be referred to a Select Committee. One last word with regard to the hon. member for Yeoville. He found himself in a dilemma. He could not argue that the first clause of the Bill should not refer to volunteers as well, because he would then be saying by implication that he approved of discrimination against volunteers. That he cannot say. However, he says a much more serious thing by alleging that this is a new principle. I wonder whether the hon. member has reflected on that statement. What they are saying by implication is that if this is a totally new principle, it was previously the intention of the legislature that employers should be able to discriminate against employees if the latter wanted to do voluntary service. That is the one side of the matter. It could never have been so. Accordingly, I want to confirm that our law advisers have considered the matter once again. The hon. member for Pretoria West is quite right in saying that this amendment was almost unnecessary. However, to put it beyond any doubt, we are doing it in this way. Therefore it is not a new principle which is at stake. Every other hon. member who argued about this matter, such as the hon. members for Ladybrand and Pretoria East, pointed out that this Bill contained no new principle. In this connection, I want to express my sincere thanks to these hon. members for their contributions. I do not think it is necessary for me to say any more about our opinion of having the Bill referred to a Select Committee. I think the principles of the matter have become quite clear in recent years.

However, I now want to come to that particular clause itself, and I want to reaffirm that it has always been the approach of the Defence Force, in satisfying its manpower needs, to take the national economy very carefully into account. When it comes to exempting people, the one who makes the largest contribution is the hon. the Minister of Labour. He makes his contribution through the Exemption Board and the Manpower Board, two boards created by him.

In this way, we ensure that careful attention is given to the economy and that the needs with regard to key positions and so on are properly satisfied. Therefore the fear to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred simply does not exist His proposal that another board should be established for the exemption of employers from non-discriminatory obligations is also unacceptable. There are already boards dealing with these matters. Who may apply to those boards for exemption? Not only the serviceman or the employee, but any interested person. With regard to such a person an employer may also apply for exemption. In the light of this, the argument about the vulnerability of the one-man enterprise also falls away. I shall refer again to the question of exemption boards at a later stage. For the present, suffice it to say that our whole system of exemption boards is intended to accommodate those who still have to do their national service or who still have to attend compulsory military camps. Those who are called up for war-time service are also accommodated in this way. Those attending military camps as volunteers, too, are accommodated by means of a system of exemption, although it is done on a more local level. Therefore we have provided in the Defence Act for criteria which can be used to meet this need. I shall leave it at that. If there are hon. members who want to take the matter further, we can do so.

The hon. member for Wynberg asked, with reference to certain prosecutions, what the result had been. I want to tell him that the statistics in this connection are not readily available. In respect of national servicemen, however, only 19 cases were reported during the period between September 1977 and September 1978. In respect of volunteers, we have begun to receive complaints that employers are behaving in a way which borders on discrimination. However, this is happening to a small and limited degree. We want to discourage it, hence these corrections. If the hon. member for Wynberg requires any further information in this connection, it can be made available to him.

Finally, I just want to illustrate, in respect of exemptions, how this approach was handled during the period between October 1978 and December 1978. Of the applications for deferment of or exemption from initial training, 94% were granted and 3,8% were turned down. As regards the applications for exemption from camps, 68% of the cases were granted extension of time; 1,4% were exempted; and 30,4% were turned down. It is clear, therefore, that the exemption boards were quite accommodating. So it cannot be said that the requirements of the economy have not been taken into consideration. I shall leave the situation at that.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, hon. members on this side of the House, especially the hon. members for Carletonville and Pretoria West, made a very thorough study of the question of national service in commandos. It is quite clear to me that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is also very well informed about this matter. I must say at once that we are not trying to break down the commandos, but that we rather want to expand them. We rather want to create an opportunity for the commandos to plan their affairs well and to prevent people from believing that their services can be summarily terminated. In order to achieve this, we are bringing the wording of the relevant provision into line with the requirements for the Citizen Force. The same regulations with regard to employment and service apply to the Citizen Force and to the commandos at this stage. We are making the discharge situation absolutely clear, so that a person cannot suppose that he is entitled to his discharge the moment he has tendered his resignation. A person who is involved in a follow-up action or a manoeuvre, for example, cannot resign while he is attending a camp. They form a small percentage and we are now providing greater certainty for them. We are giving the volunteer an opportunity to say that he wants to serve in a specific way on a voluntary, offensive or defensive basis on the home front.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South also said that he was concerned about the restriction of these obligations. We have said that we shall try to use the defensive element in the commando group area. The hon. member said that it could mean a journey of hundreds of kilometres. Depending on the environment and the population, it could be a shorter or longer distance. However, it is logical that a group commander must be able to use and plan his commandos so as to support one another. He must be able to say where the most important place is to defend home and hearth, whether at one’s front door or a little further afield. That is logical. Consequently the hon. member must accept, I believe, that the best interests of the commando member will be served by this.

The hon. member also wanted more information about the conditions of employment, etc. I do not think we should go into these today. The hon. member must be aware of the fact that regulations which are applicable throughout have already been announced in this connection. The hon. member for Pretoria West was correct when he said that the contract, to which the hon. member referred, falls well within the regulations. There is no difference in this connection. I do not want to allege that those regulations with regard to employment will never be amended. We are not saying that. However, we have written into the regulations at this stage that 19 days of interrupted or uninterrupted service is the maximum period. However, this hon. member will know that all other members of the Defence Force are doing 30 days’ training at the moment. This regulation has not yet been amended to fit in with that. However, because it is interrupted or uninterrupted service, it is possible to vary it from one commando to another as they may find it necessary.

The hon. member for Durban Point made it very clear in his contribution that he did not agree with the provisions of the next clause. I want to discuss the provisions of this clause in detail and I also want to refer to the clause which makes insurance obligatory. We should regard the provisions in this clause as an additional facility which we are making available for the national serviceman. By the national serviceman we mean not only the man who is doing 24 months’ service, but also the one who still has to do eight camps of 30 days each. This largely answers the problem of the hon. member for Yeoville as well. The hon. member for Durban Point stated the principle of this and said that he did not agree with it. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that we are still negotiating the matter. However, we need the provisions of this clause, and if we had to wait until the next Parliamentary session, it could take a long time before these provisions could come into operation. Therefore we need the provisions of this clause, although the matter is still being negotiated. As far as the premium is concerned, we want to assure the hon. member that we intend to keep it as low as possible. The indications are that it will be an absolutely reasonable premium. Hon. members must please accept that. I also want to inform the hon. member that we consider moving an amendment in the Committee Stage which may create more room for negotiation. Its effect would be that a part or the whole of the premium would be deductible, with all that implies. Therefore the hon. member for Durban Point will understand that he was to a large extent positive. We cannot yield all along the line, but we are leaving an opening in the negotiations for only a part of the premium to be deductible.

The hon. member for Pretoria West also referred to the increase in the income of national servicemen. It is a fact that if we were to comply with the demands made by the hon. member for Durban Point, we would be discriminating against the Permanent Force member. We may argue the matter in the sense that we are placing his salary on a par with that of the Permanent Force member. The income of the national serviceman is not taxable, so it is equal to the income of the Permanent Force member. The Permanent Force member is expected to supplement his other benefits by seeing to his own insurance, and while the serviceman would not normally do that, we are now offering him the opportunity of doing so. The idea is that this short-term insurance scheme will be available to those people to supplement their other benefits, which we do not regard as sufficient. I shall leave the matter at that. If the hon. member wishes, we can debate it further during the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and the hon. member for Yeoville spoke about conscientious objections. We are considering, also in the light of representations received from individual members on this side of the House, moving an amendment in the Committee Stage which will make it possible for categories of persons to be excluded from this on specific conditions and under specific circumstances. I think this will satisfy the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and will also answer the arguments of the hon. member for Yeoville to a very large extent. The hon. member for Pretoria West has already answered most of the questions relating to clause 4, and I thank him for that.

As far as the question of insurance is concerned, I want to confirm that the conditions applicable to it have not yet been finalized. We cannot finalize them without statutory authority. If there are regulations which do not satisfy the hon. member for Durban Point, he will have the opportunity of debating them once again. He knows that. Therefore I believe that his fundamental objections ought to fall away.

The hon. member for Worcester made a substantial contribution to the debate. It is true that he praised the hon. member for Yeoville, but this hon. member sometimes needs a little praise, because he seemed very dejected yesterday.

Could it be arranged for a serviceman to keep up the insurance once he has completed his training and left the Defence Force?

The indications are that this will not be possible. If the hon. member means whether he should be able to go on with the insurance, after he has severed all ties with the Defence Force, I want to tell him that this will not be possible. Hon. members must understand that this will also be applicable to the national service over 24 months and to persons who attend camps or are otherwise called up for service. The insurance will then apply for that period, but when someone leaves the service, surely it is logical that it can no longer apply. The indications are also that it will be possible through negotiation to make the insurance available to the volunteer serving in the commandos or in the Citizen Force as well.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill, which was published in the Government Gazette on 24 November 1978 for information, can be divided into three parts.

Firstly, there are three clauses largely relating to administrative matters. Section 23(6)(a) of the Liquor Act does not state clearly when and by whom a copy of an application for a special authority to sell liquor, should be sent to the local authority. The amendment proposed in clause 1 makes it perfectly clear that the applicant has to send it to the local authority before his application is considered by the Liquor Board.

When an application is made for holding a special meeting to consider an application for a new liquor licence or a special authority, an amount of R200 is payable in terms of section 40(1)(a) of the Act.

In addition, an applicant also has to pay the application fee as prescribed in section 40(1)(c) in the case of an application for a new liquor licence. This requirement is laid down in section 40(2), but an application for special authority is not included. There is no justification for this and this shortcoming is now being rectified in clause 6. When liquor licences and special authorities are granted, conditions and restrictions are imposed. It does happen that licence and authority holders require the temporary suspension of some condition for a good reason, but no provision is made for this. Clause 7 envisages making this possible on application by the licence or authority holder.

†A second part of this Bill concerns grocers’ wine licences. The clauses dealing with this aspect are 2, 4, 5 and 8. At present a grocer’s wine licence can, in terms of section 146, only be held by a person who holds a general dealer’s licence and who must, at all times, carry on the business of selling groceries and foodstuffs. Section 30 places further restrictions on the granting of this type of licence. Firstly, there is a restriction on what is referred to as a “disqualified person in relation to the premises”. The provisions of the Group Areas Act govern matters of this nature. The second restriction contained in section 30 is that a grocer’s wine licence may not be granted if an objector proves that during the 12 months preceding the date of the application, the total number of litres of table wine sold within the district by the holders of liquor store licences, wholesale licences directly to the public, hotel off-sales privileges and special authorities for off-sales, exceeded 30% of the total number of litres of all liquor sold for off-consumption during the said 12 months. These restrictions are to be repeated by clause 2. In 1960 one of the recommendations of the Malan Liquor Commission was that provision should be made in the Liquor Act for the sale, in grocery stores, of table wine and malt beer. In 1963 a draft Bill in which effect was, inter alia, given to this recommendation was published, but the provision met with such opposition, particularly from the retail trade, that by the time the Bill was introduced, beer had been omitted. Pressure was applied, on the one hand by church bodies and temperance institutions, and by the licensed retail trade also, to get the grocer’s wine licence provision deleted from the Bill, and on the other hand by the primary producers to have the provision retained. In the end the 30% restriction was inserted. This has had the effect that particularly in the Western Cape no grocer has over the past 15 years even made an effort to apply for a grocer’s wine licence. The KWV and the wine farmers consider this restriction to be discriminatory against the inhabitants of the Western Cape, which is our wine-producing area. The wine farmers have for many years been asking for the repeal of this restriction. In view of the fact that it is also the intention to allow the holders of certain retail liquor licences to establish wine counters in grocery stores, and for other reasons, I have now come to the conclusion that the 30% restriction can be lifted.

In 1963, as now, the main argument against the sale of table wine in grocery stores was that it would give rise to alcoholism. It is my view, however, that the sale of table wines in grocery stores has not had the results predicted in 1963. The fact that in 15 years only 56 such licences have come into existence, must be an indication that applications of this nature are dealt with circumspectly. I have already mentioned the wine counters in grocery stores. Clauses 4 and 8 are the clauses dealing with that aspect. I have also pointed out that in terms of section 146 a grocer’s wine licence can only be granted to a grocer. The proposed amendments, however, will make it possible to grant such a licence to the holder of a liquor store licence and of an hotel off-sales privilege, thus allowing him to operate a wine counter in a grocery store belonging to another person.

*The third principle dealt with in the Bill, affects wine farmers’ licences. In terms of section 31 of the Act a wine farmer’s licence can only be granted to a person who is engaged in viticulture. The amendment proposed in clause 3 envisages making it possible to grant a wine farmer’s licence to an association of persons which does not cultivate wine grapes itself and is not therefore engaged in viticulture, but whose members are for the most part engaged in viticulture. Secondly, the clause seeks to maintain those licences granted since 1928 in conflict with a strict interpretation of the Act—and there are indeed associations which hold such licences. It is not the aim that more wine farmers’ licences will necessarily be granted as a result of the amendment. Each application for such a licence will be considered after due account has been taken of existing needs.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is one of those rare occasions—it is certainly the first in my experience—when a measure before the House becomes an open matter. That is certainly the case as far as the PFP caucus is concerned. Individual members are free to express their personal opinions on this subject. I think it is a well-tried tradition in politics that matters relating to liquor and gambling should be open matters on which members may express their personal opinions and feelings.

Does that also apply to the members of the NP?

Well, Sir, I hope it also applies to members of the NP. I certainly think it applies to the members of the NRP. I think it would be well to discuss this matter in this fashion so that we can come to a conclusion free of any party restrictions, if I may say so. I think it will be of benefit if members express their personal feelings and opinions on the subject in the light of its implications. I, too, am speaking in my personal capacity and expressing my personal opinions, opinions unrelated to any organization or association with which I may be connected.

I think the hon. the Minister has set out very clearly what we are dealing with. He has introduced a Bill to amend the Liquor Act. The Bill proposes a very important extension of the rights and privileges in terms of the Liquor Act in that it will enable people to sell liquor in groceries where normally only foodstuffs and groceries are sold. Up to now the existing law has merely provided that the owner of the grocery must himself apply for a licence to sell wine in his shop, but as the hon. the Minister pointed out, this right is now in terms of clause 8, which amends the existing section 146, being extended firstly to liquor stores which can apply accordingly and to hotels which have off-sales licences granted to them over and above their hotel licences.

As regards the rest of the Bill, I personally do not foresee that hon. members will have any quarrel with it. Nevertheless, I shall include it in my general approach to the question of liquor. The hon. the Minister has, for example, in clause 1 introduced an amendment to section 23 to clear up the question of who specifically should make the application.

Alf, are you stalking him from the side?

This concerns the sale of liquor to Blacks and Coloureds. It is made clear who should make the application. Section 30, which has the two legs referred to by the hon. the Minister, is being repealed. Although at first I almost rejoiced to see that perhaps the reference to the Group Areas Act was being done away with, the hon. the Minister has now made it clear that it is only being done away with in this field because the Group Areas Act is going to apply in this respect in any event. The main object, however, relates to the second leg in which provision is made for the restriction that the wine sold under the licences mentioned in section 30, should not exceed 30% of total sales. Obviously the position will change as a result of the additional outlets now being provided. The gist of the Bill before us, therefore, is the consequential amendment being introduced to bring about the situation I have described and to which the hon. the Minister referred.

I am worried because I do not know how many new outlets are now going to be created for the sale of wine, outlets such as groceries, supermarkets, hypermarkets and so on. Certain guidelines are laid down for the issuing of liquor licences in terms of section 34. This issuing is governed by a certain code which determines that one liquor licence for every 2 000 voters can be issued. However, no guidelines are laid down for the number of outlets that can be provided in a district, nor are there any guidelines for liquor stores and hotels. As I read it—and I shall be happy to be corrected—there is no restriction that stipulates that the holders of those two licences can apply for only one outlet. As far as I can see, there is nothing to stop them applying for 50 to 100 outlets. It is merely left to the board itself to decide whether to grant that particular extension of a licence or not. Neither this Parliament nor the hon. the Minister can prescribe to that board what it should do or should not do in dealing with an application. There is therefore no way of knowing how many new outlets there are going to be.

I have strong reservations about all this because I am scared of alcoholism as such and of the implications involved, e.g. the suffering and tragedy it brings in its wake. I do not believe in temptation because we have to contend with the frailties of human nature. [Interjections.] I am not, however, tempted by those hon. members. [Interjections.] We have to contend with the frailties of human nature, the weak, the people who cannot say “no” and who succumb to advertising and peer group pressure which is very often the reason behind alcoholism. [Interjections.]

What will be the effect of the many more outlets that are obviously being provided for in the measure the hon. the Minister of Justice is proposing and I think it is common cause that many more are being provided. I should like to draw his attention, and that of the House, to a study completed as recently as August 1978 in the United Kingdom. It is reported in Vol. 39 of the Journal of the Study of Alcohol. Three eminent gentlemen by the names of Cartwright, Shaw and Spatley conducted this investigation. The purpose of the investigation was to measure the effect of the per capita consumption of alcohol. In this study four questions were dealt with. Firstly it was to be determined whether the per capita consumption was rising; secondly, whether there was a general trend towards heavier drinking as a result of increased consumption; thirdly, whether this consumption was associated with risk factors and other problems; and fourthly, whether problems were increased as a result. The findings of this investigation give a valid indication that the four conditions to which I have referred are positively related to the per capita consumption. In other words, the provision of more outlets—and remember this has been proved—will result in the difficulties shown up by this survey. The availability of liquor as such and the increase in the per capita consumption lead to the situation that has been outlined.

Where was that study done?

In the United Kingdom. Today we have a problem in South Africa in this regard. Figures have been given by organizations concerned with this problem and I can only go by these figures, though I do not know how accurate they are. We are dealing with a problem of something like 100 000 White alcoholics and 100 000 Coloured alcoholics—including abusers—in South Africa. There are, however, no reliable figures for alcohol consumption amongst the Black people. However, one can rely on the following findings: Firstly, that there is an increase in beri-beri heart disease as a result of the consumption of alcohol; secondly, that there is a resultant higher incidence of gastritis and, thirdly, that amongst psychotic patients who have been treated it has been found that 50% of their problems arise out of the consumption of alcohol.

We are only dealing with table wines, not alcohol.

I shall deal with that point in a moment. Just have a little patience. There are also indications that there is an increase in the use and abuse of alcohol amongst our youth.

Order! I merely want to point out to the hon. member that I am not going to restrict the debate, but there is a Bill before the House and hon. members must not deal with all the specific detail of this very wide subject.

Mr. Speaker, I bow to your ruling, but I can only stress my individual objection to the extension of liquor outlets by showing that the per capita increase in the consumption of alcohol leads to the problem of alcoholism. I shall not go into a long discourse, but I do want to illustrate my point.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. Like the abuse of drugs, we also find that alcohol is being used by the youth.

I should now like to deal with the point raised, by way of interjection, by the hon. member for Worcester. The Bill, he says, deals with wines and he objects to my dealing with alcohol. I want to remind hon. members, however, that light wines contain 8% to 12% alcohol, that fortified wines contain 18% to 22% alcohol, whereas beer contains 4% to 6% alcohol. Therefore when I am talking about alcohol I am talking also about the consumption of wine, and the percentages I have indicated justify my doing so. We must therefore understand each other clearly.

I shall reply to that.

I do not have anything against anybody who wants to drink. I do not wear a halo. I am not the Saint. Everyone is free to do his own thing. Of the 75% of the population of South Africa that consumes alcohol, however, what we must remember is that 6% end up as alcoholics, with a loss to the country of 25% of what they earn. Measured in terms of annual expenditure, this amounts to R200 million per year. Putting it another way, one can say that each alcoholic loses approximately 22 days of his working life per annum. Of those people who are alcoholics, 90% are actually active in the work they undertake or in the professions in which they serve, only 3% belonging to the so-called hobo class to which people often refer disparagingly, thinking they are all “drunks”, if I may use that term. They do not, however, all fall into that category.

The heavy consumption of alcohol also leads to the problem of road accidents, and it has been shown that 45% of road accidents are caused by the over-consumption of liquor. Between 18h00 and 06h00 65% of all accidents are due to a heavy alcoholic intake. Those who have heavily consumed liquor contribute towards 80% of road deaths and 60% of casualties.

Let us now look at broken homes. I do not have the actual figures for divorce and I think they must be very difficult to ascertain accurately. It has been ascertained, however, that 70% of children in children’s homes have one or two parents with an alcohol problem. In the Addington Hospital in Durban in 1975, as hon. members will remember, the staff analysed 798 cases of organic brain damage, and it was found that in 317 cases the brain damage was alcohol-induced. The difficulties due to an over-consumption of alcohol can therefore be appreciated, and I believe we should show our great concern and also express our reservations about this, thus helping to guide the Liquor Board and others who are responsible. Although I understand that hon. members will be speaking freely, this legislation will eventually go through, and we must therefore now deal with the situation as best we can. However, I would ask hon. members to bear in mind all these factors. In this respect I also want to refer to a communication received from the Temperance Alliance stating—

This communication also confirms the figure I gave earlier, namely that about 6% of all people become dependent on alcohol.

Therefore, given all these circumstances, I submit that I am against the principle of extending the provisions of sale of alcohol in the form of wine to the various grocery shops, as is being done now. I believe we should act with great circumspection and express our gravest concern and reservations if we want to preserve the health of a nation. I merely want to express my abject disappointment that in this Health Year the hon. the Minister has seen fit to launch an assault on the health, the wellbeing, the physiological, psychological and social soundness of the South African society. I will be voting against this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I always have respect for another person’s standpoint. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow closed his speech with a reprehensible sentence. He said that the Government was launching an attack on the health of our people this year, a year which is known as Health Year. The hon. member put it in this way: “The Government is launching an assault upon the health of its people”. I think the hon. member should refrain from becoming emotional about this matter.

The hon. member referred to road accidents, to broken families, and similar things, as though the Government were not also concerned about broken families. However, I must point out that people also waste their money on horse races. In the old days there were the dog races in Johannesburg. Many people waste their money on things of this kind as well and are consequently unable to support their families. Of course the Government also bears the responsibility of ensuring that this kind of thing does not happen, that it is eliminated.

However, I want to begin at the beginning. While the hon. member for Hillbrow was speaking I said by way of an interjection that this Bill dealt only with light wines. However, the hon. member kept on referring to alcohol, and later on even to drugs. Of course this is completely irrelevant here. Light, natural wine is nutritious. [Interjections.] It is a nutrient which one partakes of at the table at mealtimes. No one has ever alleged that one should be able to buy wine everywhere and at any time and then consume it in the street. Those who have made representations to the Government, the KWV and other organizations, have always adopted the standpoint that we should use wine in a civilized way. I shall return again to this point later. Hon. members know me. I have often discussed this matter. Wine is a product of nature, something given by nature to mankind. Wine should be used in a civilized way, at mealtimes.

Furthermore the hon. member for Hillbrow said: “The more outlets, the more alcoholism”. I wonder whether I should not reply to the hon. member on this. I refuse to believe that the number of hotels, liquor stores or other liquor distribution points in a specific town is going to make any difference at all to liquor sales. Whether it is two or three, or 20 or 30, makes no difference. It will have no effect on the consumption. What is involved here is the civilized use of light wines, and not the abuse of brandy, whisky and spirits, etc. to which the hon. member referred.

I am approaching this Bill from the point of view of the producer, and I am not ashamed to say so. We are grateful to the hon. the Minister for having submitted this Bill to this House. From the point of view of the producer it has, over the years, been unfair that this 30% restriction has applied in this part of our country—which is after all where our wine is manufactured—which has consequently not been afforded the opportunity of selling its wines through a grocery store. The hon. the Minister is a friend of the wine farmer, and I thank him for that. He is not an abuser of wine, but appreciates that wine is an important component of our economy in the Western Cape. Since the hon. the Minister has now submitted this Bill to the House, we thank him for doing so because he has in that way boosted the economy of the wine industry further.

He will increase the sales.

I heard that the hon. member was back in the House. The hon. member just has to lift his head for one to hear it.

We must also thank the KWV. Where can one hope to find a more respected body of directors, of extremely civilized Christian gentlemen? One finds these people, and wine farmers as well, on our church councils, school committees and other educational bodies. They are not abusers and are not people who want to turn South Africa into a country of wine imbibers. These are people who regard this noble product with respect and ask that it be used in a civilized way and at the right time and place. I want to convey my gratitude to these people.

South Africa is not the only country in which attempts are being made to improve wine consumption. We have here a clipping from the Wynboer of March 1979. According to this clipping there is a slogan in Russia these days which goes: “Drink less vodka, drink more wine.” If Russia is telling its people to drink less vodka and more wine, there must be a good reason. According to this clipping this slogan originated in Russia for the purpose of reducing alcoholism. It is known as an anti-alcohol publicity campaign.

According to the international viticultural office only West Germany consumed more wine during the past financial year. According to this office there has also been a sharp move away from alcohol and spirits to light wines in Latin America. Consequently South Africa is not the only country where this is happening.

I should also like to deal with section 30, which is now going to be deleted. In conjunction with that I should also like to say a few words about section 146. Section 30(3) of the Liquor Act of 1977 provides that no grocer’s wine licences may be granted if any objector to the application adduces proof upon oath that during the preceding 12 months the total number of litres of wine exceeded 30% of the total quantity of liquor consumed. The result was that a large part of South Africa could not avail itself of this opportunity. Why are we now advocating something like this?

In the first place we feel that the sale of light wine should be boosted in view of the fact that light, natural wine is the primary product of 7 000 to 8 000 wine farmers. We decided, the Malan Commission, the Government and the Minister of Finance decided, that the drinking patterns in South Africa should be changed, i.e. away from strong liquor to light wines which we can enjoy with our meals. The hon. the Minister of Finance has again made a small concession by reducing the excise duty on wine by one cent per litre. One does not drink a glass of whisky or brandy with one’s fish or meat course.

Nor beer.

Nor beer. One enjoys a natural wine drink with one’s meal. The housewife who is now going to visit the store to purchase her potatoes, rice or sugar, can also buy a little wine for herself and her family. Consequently wine is now included in her shopping list. Wine now becomes a product which can normally be purchased in a shop. In my opinion the housewife is now in a position to have a far greater influence on the alcohol consumption of her family, for as a responsible person she is now going to tell her husband and children that they are in future going to drink a glass of wine at table because it is a civilized and aesthetically pleasing product. Natural wines are noble products. We have never alleged that they should be abused, but we believe that they are a product which should be used to accompany food at the right time and place. I honestly wish that hon. members who spoke so disparagingly of this product would bear that in mind.

I am grateful to be able to say that we are pleased at the concession which the hon. the Minister is making in this connection. At the same time I should like to raise a few other aspects in regard to wine farmers’ licences. We refer to that as a section 24 authority. Since 1928 the co-operative wine cellars have had the inalienable, inherent right to sell their product on their premises. Subsequently an organization made application to sell these wines on other premises as well. A magistrate gave a verdict in this connection, and as a result of that verdict representations were addressed to the effect that this wine cellar in question should be allowed to have a depot as well, in other words that its wine may be sold on premises other than the premises on which the wine was being manufactured. I am pleased that this concession can now be granted in regard to that section 24 authority. The State was concerned because certain agricultural co-operatives consist of various sections of which only one might have something to do with wine. Wine was consequently only a subdivision of the activities of certain agricultural co-operatives, and there was consequently a justifiable reason for concern among the members of the liquor trade that certain wine producers could establish artificial co-operatives, or that certain people could establish artificial cooperatives and in that way acquire wine farmers’ licences. In that way they would in my opinion have competed on a large scale with the existing retail outlets. That is why the matter is now being rectified and it is being provided that the majority shareholders of such a co-operative shall be wineproducers or wine farmers.

I am also pleased that wine counters may now be established in grocery stores. I am also pleased that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to provide that such a grocery store shall always remain a grocery store. Such a grocery store cannot apply for a wine licence and then, within a year’s time, have only one grocery counter, and sell wine at the other counters. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister is therefore providing that a true grocery store should remain just that and that it will have only one wine counter. I am also pleased that the principle has been accepted that only independent dealers may apply for licences. Consequently a dealer who is associated with the wholesale liquor producers will not be able to acquire such a licence. In South Africa we already have the problem of a monopoly in the liquor trade, whether we want to accept this or not. However, I do not want to go into this at any length now, because it is a different subject altogether. But I am grateful that the hon. the Minister feels strongly about a grocery dealer who applies for such a licence being an independent dealer as far as the liquor trade is concerned.

Once again I wish to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister for these important amendments to the Liquor Act and also for the opportunity he is affording us to stimulate the economy of the wine industry and to get to know wine as a nutritious product.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Worcester, and although I am not going to comment specifically on the various points he raised, I want to assure him that I did listen carefully to what he said.

Do you agree?

That is the question. I just want to ask hon. members of the NP first of all whether they are going to employ the same basic principle that we in this extremely democratic party are going to employ. What my question actually amounts to, is whether they are in fact going to allow a free vote. In other words, are they going to be bound by the instructions of their Whips or not?

†We in this party, like the hon. members of the PFP, believe that anything that has to do with liquor must be a matter of personal conscience. I do not believe that any political party has the right to intrude upon that very fundamental principle. That is why I hope that the National Party will also adopt the responsible attitude towards its own members, its own principles and the question of liquor by allowing its members a free vote on this issue. If, under circumstances such as this, from which very little political gain can be derived, the National Party is not prepared to give a free vote to its members, I think we must have a second look at the National Party claims that they always have the interests of everybody at heart. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must not converse so loudly please.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members to my left are rather troublesome? I want to ask hon. members to give careful consideration to the matter of how they are going to vote on this very important matter.

†I want to come to the basis of the two questions which must be answered here this afternoon in terms of a free vote. I do not believe that the NP, unless it has a free vote, can really claim to answer these two questions successfully. We once had an hon. member of the NP who said that at one stage he was getting a little bit tired of the debates in the House and longed for the old days “toe bul nog teen bul kon staan”.

*I want to tell the hon. member for Witwatersberg that in this party of ours, where a free vote is going to be allowed, he will in fact have the opportunity of “bul teen bul te sien staan”. [Interjections.] To us in this party the use of alcohol is not an issue which will cause so much in-fighting as to lead to general discord in the party.

†Mr. Speaker, there are two questions that must be answered here today in order to decide whether we should support this legislation or not. First of all, is the increased consumption of light wine a bad thing or not, both psychologically and physiologically? That is the first question we must answer for ourselves. The second question is whether by the extension of the possible number of premises that will be able to sell wine is going to be detrimental to the interests of those people who have invested a lot of capital over many years in establishing, under the laws as they were then, their own outlet system. We also have to examine, in terms of the economic aspect, whether we are not detrimentally—and accidentally perhaps—affecting the livelihood of other people by allowing an advantage to the grocery stores. If we are to examine the possibility that the consumption of wine will now grow out of all proportion to other alcohol and that this may have an ill effect, both psychologically and physiologically, on the human beings of South Africa, I believe that we must first decide to remove the overlying emotionalism surrounding this aspect. I think we have to look at that very critically and objectively when we are examining legislation of this kind. I am often told that there are two things one never discusses with good friends, the one being politics and the other religion.

Why not?

Because people do not keep a sense of perspective. [Interjections.] In this party we have always handled matters extremely responsibly and I therefore believe that in the NRP we can talk about religion and politics. I am, however, concerned about the other hon. members in the House… [Interjections.]… particularly those on my left who get terribly emotional when we raise certain issues.

I want to appeal to those hon. members to drop the emotionalism when it comes to a discussion of alcohol—and I am referring to the hon. member for Hillbrow as well—and to take a very objective look at this matter.

I was not emotional.

If we do not, we could come to the wrong conclusions. I also direct my appeal to hon. members in my own party—I shall not mention them by name—and ask them to take a very objective look at the question of the use of alcohol. The problem is not the use of alcohol. It is the excessive use of alcohol that produces the problem.

So let us have a few more outlets!

That also applies to any other product that is consumed, whether it be food or anything else, and I see very few members here who excessively partake of food.

Steady!

Whatever one partakes of, whether it contains carbohydrates, refined carbohydrates or bulk, moderation is really the thing that succeeds in the end. I should like to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Hillbrow who said that owing to alcoholism we have thousands of motor accidents in South Africa. That is not, however, as a result of the use of alcohol. It is the excessive use of alcohol that is the problem.

Which is what is being permitted in this Bill.

The excessive use of anything is, however, usually restricted to a minority of the population. We had a very good example recently in the misuse of political propaganda, a minority getting the majority of propaganda. I shall not say which party that was, but I will say that it is the misuse of anything that is the evil and not the thing itself.

Let us take motor-car accidents as an example. There are more than 4 000 people killed on our roads in motor accidents every year, but that does not mean that one has to ban motor-cars, or stop the production and distribution of motor-cars. What we must do, however, is to educate the people to utilize the facilities and foodstuffs they have properly and not to indulge in excesses. [Interjections.] There are some hon. members in this House, of course, who suffer from an excess use of words, and that is also a very bad thing!

Let us now look at the two questions that have to be answered: Firstly, is it going to be detrimental to people’s health if additional outlets are opened up and, secondly, what would be the financial harm done to people who are in the liquor trade at the moment? Moving away from the argument that the excessive use of alcohol is the real danger, I initially want to have a closer look at the first of the two questions. I believe that an alcoholic will get his alcohol, no matter where it is sold. It does not matter whether it is sold in a supermarket, a bottle store or a shebeen. Even if he has to make it himself, if he is an alcoholic he is going to get hold of alcohol. [Interjections.] So I reject the argument that the opening up of additional outlets for the sale of wine is going to lead to increased alcoholism. On the contrary, I think there is a very good chance that people who were excessive consumers of hard tack will now be encouraged, by the excellent promotions and the educational programmes laid on by the people who sell wine in the supermarkets and hypermarkets, to drink in moderation, and if one is to drink in moderation, should one not really drink the best of the available wines?

That is a tortuous argument if ever I have heard one!

I think there is a strong case to be made out for the point of sale education of the public in the moderate use of things like alcohol. [Interjections.] I totally reject the concept—and the figures quoted by the hon. the Minister lend support to this—that the number of outlets will be disproportional to what the market can stand. I do not believe that the market is suddenly going to explode and that we are going to have thousands of alcoholics on our hands. If that were to be the case, it would have happened already.

I now come to the second question which must be answered, viz. whether this measure will be detrimental to those people who have invested a lot of money and a lot of their time in building up the existing infrastructure of wine-outlets. I think this is probably the one area in respect of which we have to be reasonably careful before passing this amending legislation. Many of the hotels we have today have been forced to register with the Hotel Board, which I think is an excellent thing, and have also been forced to up-grade their standards, which is an excellent thing too, but then we must not lose sight of the fact that they have been able to do so by virtue of the profit they have made in their bars and, generally, from their trade in liquor. The beautiful hotels we have, some of which have international restaurants, have to a very large extent, in serving á la carte meals, been able to make a profit out of the sale of wine. If by removing certain outlets and increasing the number of outlets generally we are going to affect detrimentally these outlets, some of which are the pride of our nation, I think we should take another good look at this amending Bill. The question we must ask ourselves is whether it is worth allowing, for instance, the hypermarkets and supermarkets to get their hands on the distribution of wine. This can very easily happen. With the power these hypermarkets have and their practice of bulk buying it is very likely that excessive inroads will be made into the traditional wine-outlets. I am not now referring specifically to the bottle stores. Many of our wines, particularly our good wines, are sold in the à la carte restaurants.

Now you are proving my case.

Let him hang himself.

With the promotion of wine in the supermarkets, the possibility now exists that the à la carte restaurants are going to be detrimentally affected. I think we must give very serious consideration to the question whether this is in fact a desirable thing. Having put that question, let me say that I personally—this is an open matter—have come to the conclusion, too, that once again there will be a reciprocal relation between the sale of wine at hypermarkets and the consumption of wine at à la carte restaurants. The vast numbers of people going through the hypermarkets and supermarkets will then be educated by the point-of-sale material on display and stimulated by it to go to á la carte restaurants and enjoy a glass of wine instead of drinking spirits. In my own mind I have concluded, however, that in the long term the existing outlets such as à la carte restaurants, hotels and bottle stores will not be detrimentally affected should this amending legislation be passed. I should like to direct a particular appeal to organizations such as Fedhasa and the Bottle Store Owners’ Association to take a long-term view of the positive benefits of this amending legislation.

There are a number of technical problems we have with the wording of the Bill. I think they have to do more with the translation than anything else. We shall probably be able to deal with that more successfully at the Committee Stage.

Who is “we”?

Those who are concerned about this Bill, those who see it in the right perspective. During the Committee Stage we should like to move one or two amendments.

You should like to.

Coming to the end of my dissertation on the use of the finest refreshing drink we have, a product of South Africa which has been cultivated over 365 hard years, let me say that by the sweat of our brow and through the skill of our forefathers we have produced in South Africa a source of liquid gold. That liquid gold, which comes in many shades, delights and tickles the palate. For those who may get carried away by the prospect of the darker shadows of alcoholism looming, I should like to say that that is not what we are talking about here this afternoon. We are talking about the promotion of civilization and the use of the fruits of our labour. In that sense I appeal to every hon. member in the House to support me so that I can carry the day with this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, my knowledge of wine is not such that I can wax quite lyrical about it as the hon. member for Worcester did, but I can tell hon. members that where I come from we have particularly good Karoo mutton. So I know enough to be able to say that together they form an excellent combination. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban North said a great deal with which I could agree. He asked, inter alia, whether the increased distribution of light wines would be bad for the nation’s health. He then furnished the reply himself, with which I am in full agreement, and that was that it is the abuse of those wines which is bad.

The Bill seeks to amend the existing Liquor Act. I want to deal with only a few of the main clauses since the other clauses are concerned only with technical and formal amendments.

Clause 1 amends section 23 of the existing Act. In terms of the existing section 23 the Minister grants special authority for the sale of liquor to the persons to whom the article refers. However, there are two conditions. He must do so firstly, on the recommendations of the National Liquor Board, and secondly, he does so after proof has been adduced to him in terms of the existing Act that the local authority also has knowledge of such application. The amendment contained in clause 1 simply entails that the applicant is required to adduce proof to the satisfaction of the Liquor Board that the local authority has knowledge of his application. Before it makes a recommendation the Liquor Board will then have full particulars of the application, including particulars of any possible objection which the local authority may have in that connection. This ensures a proper consideration of all the facts, first by the Liquor Board and subsequently by the Minister. This can only lead to a more considerate and equitable decision on the applications.

Clause 2 repeals the existing section 30. The first part of section 30 deals only with disqualified persons in respect of certain areas in which a licence may be granted. This is now being repealed, for there is other legislation which already deals with this matter as effectively. The last part of section 30, which is now being repealed, is of real importance. Briefly and in general the existing section 30(3) provides that a grocer’s wine licence shall not be granted in a certain area if the table wine sales in that area are in excess of 30% of the total liquor sales.

The fact that this restriction is now being abolished is of special importance, particularly to the Western Cape, where the sales of light wines are in any case in excess of 30% of all the liquor sales, and consequently hardly any grocer’s wine licences have been granted in this area. With the abolition of the 30% restriction there is now no legal impediment to the granting of grocer’s wine licences. I shall return to this again later.

Clause 3 amends section 31 to the effect that a wine farmer’s licence which previously could only be granted to a person who is actually engaged in viticulture may now also be granted to an association of persons provided the majority of the members of that association are wine farmers.

What clause 5, read in conjunction with clause 8, amounts to in effect is that the holder of a liquor licence, in addition to the holder of a general dealer’s licence for certain premises, may also obtain a grocer’s wine licence in respect of those premises where bona fide trade in groceries and foodstuffs must at all times be carried on. In effect this means that an hotel owner with off-sale privileges, for example, will have the right to acquire a grocer’s wine licence to sell light wines in the shop of another person as well.

The amendment Bill does not amend the general principles contained in the Act, viz. that wine may be sold in a grocery store. It merely extends that principle. Consequently the question is: How does this extended principle influence the existing interest groups? In the first instance we find the existing liquor trade which is an important group and which could now argue that the elimination of the 30% protection clause will entail that more grocer’s wine licences will be granted, particularly in the Western Cape, which will compete unfairly with the hotels, for the capital input of the hotels is far greater than that of the grocery store for purposes of classification and so on.

I must concede that this is a valid argument, but for the following reasons I do not think it is an argument which carries exceptional weight. The amendment Bill makes it possible for the liquor dealer now to acquire a grocer’s wine licence as well, even, as I have already said, in the shop of another person. The hotel owner may also be a member of that association of persons which obtains a wine farmer’s licence, although I know that this is not meant to be the case. There is nothing in the Act which prohibits him from acquiring one. The most important reason is that in the granting of new licences the usual, general norm, which has always applied in respect of the granting of new licences, viz. what is in the public interest, and in conjunction with that, what the reasonable needs of the public are, will always continue to be stringently applied. In other words, licences cannot be granted left, right and centre, but only with great discretion and circumspection.

The general criticism levelled at the hotel industry is in fact that they place such undue emphasis on the profit on liquor that they neglect their dining-room and their accommodation facilities as a result. A little extra competition could only have a good effect in this connection.

How does this affect the consumer? From the point of view of the consumer there will be more distribution points, situated in convenient places, viz. where food supplies are purchased. This is only logical, for food and drink go together, and the person who separates them runs the risk of encountering serious problems. I see this as part of an educational process in the correct use of liquor.

As far as the consumer is concerned, it may justifiably be asked whether it will encourage drunkenness. As far as I am concerned, the answer to that question is “no”. Although there may be more distribution points, there are not necessarily more consumption points. These distribution points are being introduced in the sober atmosphere of an ordinary shop. This is also supported by the consumer trend in regard to light wines. Percentage-wise the consumption of light wines actually decreased from 30% to 22% between 1963 and 1976, despite the fact that all the existing grocer’s wine licences were in fact granted during that period.

The most important interest group is indisputably agriculture. For the farmer the passing of this legislation will mean fewer restrictions on the marketing of his product. Of course there is no possibility that wine will ever be sold without restrictions, as cool-drinks are sold. Wine is after all a product which is of such a nature that its use and consumption must take place in a responsible way. It is already the case that the fresh produce of the farmer is the only commodity in which the principle of supply and demand still plays a part. That is why the prices are sometimes high, but quite frequently low in comparison with the prices of other goods, the prices of which simply continue to rise. It is, in other words, in the interests of the economic welfare of the farmer that we should place as few obstacles as possible in the way of the marketing of his products. For that reason I support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will not reply at any length to the speech made by the hon. member for Namakwaland, because I agree very strongly with almost everything he said.

You should be ashamed of yourself! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, in order to prove that we in this party really enjoy the right of free speech, I propose to argue contrary to the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Hillbrow. [Interjections.]

You are going to get a mouthful for doing that.

I do not want to deal with many of the points that have already been raised. However, in order to give perhaps a slightly new dimension to the debate I will deal with it from a slightly different point of view. I believe it is fair to say that although this Bill deals with certain amendments and certain substitutions, the particular principle which is being raised is the question whether these amendments and substitutions will advance alcoholism in South Africa or whether they will in fact retard the spread of alcoholism. I want to add that it is not just alcoholism which is a social evil, but also drunkenness. These two, although they are associated social evils, are not necessarily the same thing. Sometimes they do exist side by side. Sometimes they exist independently of each other. I believe they both need to be looked at in the light of the provisions of this Bill.

I believe there is no hon. member in this House who will, for one moment, vote for a Bill which is likely to advance alcoholism. I think it would be most immoral to do such a thing.

Now, why do you do it then?

The question is whether or not this particular amending Bill will do just that. It is my contention that it will not do so. I think that we should first of all look at the question of whether restrictive sales or general availability advances drunkenness, in the first instance, and alcoholism, in the second instance.

My main reason for speaking in this debate is because I happened, by chance, to have spent a great part of my life in countries… [Interjections.]

Oh you lucky man!

I spent a good many years of my life in countries where alcohol is freely available…

Oh yes, we can see that!

… in food shops, in all kinds of shops where foodstuffs are sold. The question is whether, in the light of this experience—an experience which certainly interested me very much—one can say that people actually drink more or drink less than they do in countries where liquor is less freely available. I believe this is a fair question. It has been my experience that in countries where there is a free sale of wines, people are actually far less inclined to drunkenness than in countries where such prohibitions exist.

They show a far higher rate of alcoholism.

Yes, that is so.

I think it is largely due to the fact that by allowing a free sale of wines, by encouraging people to drink wine as a food, by encouraging people to buy wine in food shops and to associate those two psychologically, one breeds an attitude to wine which is contrary to the idea of alcoholism and contrary to the advancement of drunkenness. In those countries one very seldom sees people in a state of drunkenness. [Interjections.] It is a fact that in those countries, in France and Italy for example, there is alcoholism. Alcoholism exists in those countries just as it exists in other countries where restrictions apply. The fact is that alcoholism is a disease. It is a disease suffered by people who have a craving for alcohol. When they have that craving they will find alcohol, regardless of whether it is sold in restricted areas or more freely in all places. The question is what kind of education are we giving the public in respect of using alcohol. I believe—it has certainly been my experience—that if the use of wine is associated with normalcy and not with abuse, children, for example, grow up to accept that wine is something to be used with discretion, something to be used with food at the table, that it is not a means to over-indulgence, not a method of self-abuse, but in fact an entirely normal and natural thing that needs to be treated with respect and with good manners.

Now, these factors are contrary to the advancement of alcoholism. They are contrary to public drunkenness or even private drunkenness. I believe the way to teach people to make sensible use of this natural gift to mankind is by cultivating an atmosphere in which alcohol is bought and used not in an alien environment, but in which it is in fact obtained and used in an atmosphere which is associated with the congenial familiarity of the domestic circle. I believe that drunkenness and alcoholism are very often accentuated by prohibition and reduced by an atmosphere in which self-control must be exercised. If one takes, for example, the great American period of prohibition, it seems that there was no time during which there was a higher record of drunkenness, of alcoholic abuse and of alcoholism and crime than in that country where they tried to prohibit the use of alcohol altogether. I believe that if one wants to see the other end of the scale one should go to countries where there is a completely free and liberal alcohol market. There one will find that, on the whole, the society has adjusted itself to using alcohol in a civilized and self-controlled manner, and that alcohol is certainly neither a cause nor a consequence nor a part of the criminal scene in those countries.

I believe that one has got to look at these great experiments of mankind. It is all very well to say that alcoholism is a disease and because alcohol comes in bottles, the number of bottles made available and places where they can be bought must be limited. I believe one has to consider whether it should not be made easier to buy healthful forms of drink than stronger or more pernicious forms of alcohol. This is what this Bill brings about. It is making wines with a low alcohol content much more easily available to people than hard liquor which must be obtained from the bottle store. If one were deliberately to set out to encourage the civilized and self-controlled use of alcohol in a country and to discourage the over-indulgence in other forms of alcohol which would be more harmful, then surely the obvious thing to do would be to say that groceries and food shops should be allowed to sell the light types of wine which are used with food in conditions which are conducive to proper self-control and civilized behaviour in connection with alcohol. The thing to do would be to greatly favour that kind of trade to make it easier for people to purchase their wines together with their food and thus avoid the necessity of their going elsewhere where other forms of alcohol are also available. It is a simple argument, and the conclusions are quite simple. I believe we must accept that we are concerned with the prevention of alcoholism and public drunkenness. The best way to do this, is not to prohibit these things, because history teaches us that that does not work, but to create conditions in which people can use alcohol sensibly and make a friend of it and not an enemy.

Mr. Speaker, I think clause 8 is certainly one of the most far-reaching clauses to be inserted in the Liquor Act in many years. I wish to state at the outset that this clause has my wholehearted support, for several reasons which I shall refer to in a moment.

I just want to reply briefly to the speech by the hon. member for Durban North. He asked why we were not allowing a free vote on this side of the House. Perhaps the hon. member does not realize that this Liquor Amendment Bill has been very thoroughly discussed by the responsible group of hon. members on this side of the House. Every hon. member had the opportunity of expressing himself opposed to it if he wanted to. However, there was not a single hon. member who did so. On the contrary. The hon. members were in agreement and had a cordial discussion. The hon. member for Durban North also wanted to know whether, as a result of this legislation, the hypermarkets and supermarkets were not going to obtain control over the sale of light wines in grocery stores. I wish to point out to the hon. member that at present there are more than 725 major grocery stores in South Africa with a turnover of more than R300 000 per annum. There are also more than 2 800 grocery stores with a turnover of more than R75 000 per annum. These grocery stores have been in existence for many years and one wonders why liquor licences were not granted to them immediately. Only 56 liquor licences have been granted up to now. In the second place, the hon. member must bear in mind that the Liquor Board carefully goes into all applications for liquor licences. Since I do not serve on the Liquor Board, I do not know what they are going to do in this regard, but if I had been in their position I should ascertain in what cases liquor wholesalers had interests in grocery stores. The grocery store involved would then perhaps not be able to obtain a grocery licence so easily. One has to keep matters such as these in mind in a dispassionate appraisal of the Bill.

The hon. the Minister went on to mention the Malan Commission which investigated the matter in 1960 and recommended that wine should be sold in grocery stores. The recommendations would probably have been implemented at the time if such tremendous pressure had not been exerted against its implementation. At the time objections to it were raised, inter alia, the danger of alcoholism, and for that reason this insertion in our Liquor Act was abandoned. Only later, in 1963, was the section providing that grocery stores could also obtain liquor licences inserted in our Liquor Act.

The 30% restriction was also introduced at the time. The question occurs to one: Where does the 30% come from? I have tried to ascertain why it is 30%, and have come to the conclusion that this was a purely arbitrary percentage. During 1963 the per capita consumption of alcohol as far as light wines were concerned, was 30%. In my view, that was where the 30% limitation originated. Since 1964 only 56 grocers’ wine licences have been granted. This is, in my view, proof of how extremely selectively the granting of these licences has taken place. There are perhaps very good reasons for that.

It is also interesting to note that out of these 56 grocers’ wine licences only three were granted in the Cape Province, namely at King William’s Town, Queenstown and East London. In the Free State, no such licences have been granted. The other 53 were all granted in the Transvaal and in Natal. This has a bearing on the question put by a former hon. member: Why is this type of licence not being granted here in the Western Cape? In my view this is also an important reason for the insertion of clause 2 which now cancels the provisions of section 30, which introduced the 30% restriction. The rest of the Cape Province, in particular the Cape Peninsula and the Western Cape, will now benefit from the repeal of this restriction. This region is, after all, the great artery of the wine production of our country and to my mind it is only right and fair that this 30% restriction should now be removed from our Liquor Act.

I wish to state, without disparaging any type of drink, that it is necessary to effect a change in the drinking pattern of our people. If we consider the per capita consumption of liquor in our country we find that in 1963, approximately 2,06 litres of spirits were consumed per person. This amounted to approximately 13% of his total consumption of liquor. Fortified wines constituted approximately 18% of the total consumption of liquor. The per capita consumption of unfortified wines, that is to say, our natural wines, was 30%. The per capita consumption of beer was 39%. By 1976, the situation had changed to such an extent that the per capita consumption of our unfortified wines had fallen to 22% whereas the per capita consumption of beer had increased to 59,8%; this is almost 60%. In my opinion the time has therefore arrived for us to do something about the situation so that our light wines, in particular, may also take their rightful place in the per capita consumption of liquor in the country. It is also interesting to note the following statistics: Between 1962 and 1970 the consumption of table wine increased by 138% whereas the consumption of beer increased by 183%. In 1973 the consumption of table wine again showed a slight increase, but since then it has decreased. I do think there is sufficient justification for looking into this matter again.

When one considers the bodies and persons that are in favour of the Bill and those who are opposed to it, it is understandable that there will be persons who will have objections to the amendment which is being effected by clause 8. The same objection that was raised 16 years ago, and as far back as 1928, is now again being raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow, namely that alcoholism will increase. Alcoholism will persist regardless of whether the outlets for liquor are increased or not. There will always be alcoholism. It is, and always remains, a task for education to provide a better understanding of alcohol in South African society. In view of our population structure our task is perhaps all the greater.

If due account is taken of the standpoints of large organizations, it will be seen that the KWV welcomes this step. In fact, they have been pleading for many years now that the sale of the light wines in grocery stores should take place more freely. The Chamber of Commerce also welcomes this step. It is of course in the interests of their members, but they welcome the Bill because it encourages free enterprise and comes up to their expectations. As far as the grape and wine farmers are concerned, they of course welcome this step. There is a bigger and better market for their products and it must be taken into account that they naturally obtain better prices for natural wines than they do for distilling wine. The grape farmers will therefore enjoy greater security because like all other farmers in our country, they are faced with continual increases in production costs, with the result that these days many of them are battling to keep their heads above water. Consequently, in the nature of things, the wine farmer will welcome this clause.

Fedhasa is evidently not altogether happy with this provision. However, the question arises to what extent the implementation of this clause can harm the hotel industry. As far as the hotel industry is concerned, cognizance should perhaps be taken of a few aspects. The concession granted in terms of clause 8 is applicable in respect of all retail licences, and this also means that off-sales at hotels licensed in terms of section 87(1)(a) of the Liquor Act, can apply to have a wine counter in a grocery store. One licensee will not obtain more than one outlet at a grocery store. This will have to be laid down by the Liquor Board, namely that a retail licensee may obtain only one outlet in a grocery store. In this way the members of Fedhasa will also be able to benefit from the provisions of this clause. It must be borne in mind however that the entire sphere of operations of the liquor trade is not being thrown open by this clause. This provision will not be applicable to spirits, beer or fortified wines. In fact, it is going to affect less than 25% of the liquor in South Africa. For that reason I do not believe that Fedhasa need be concerned about clause 8.

How is the public being affected by this? It must always be borne in mind that constant efforts are being made to provide a better service to society at all times. The consumer should be able to exercise a free choice in order to bargain for the best price, to obtain the best value for money, what is most convenient to himself, and the best service. I think the outlets for wine in the grocery stores will meet with these requirements.

Furthermore, new and more cultivars will also be freely available to the public. It is extremely important also to protect vested interests for the sake of the security of the industry. It is also of the utmost importance, however, to ensure production and productivity in the long term. One method is to undertake market studies from time to time and to extend, to alleviate or altogether eliminate certain forms of protection that are now in existence. However, I think this new field should be entered with circumspection and that grocers’ wine licences should not immediately be issued left, right and centre to every grocery store. That could only be harmful.

How will these new applications be handled? I think it is simple really. Application will have to be made in the same manner as any other application in terms of section 87(1)(a) of the Liquor Act. A few other aspects will, however, have to be taken into account. There must definitely be a need for such a grocer’s wine licence in a particular vicinity, else I do not think it will be passed by the Liquor Board. Apart from the need, it must also be taken into account that the sale of wine will be very closely related to the sale of foodstuffs. For that reason it is provided that wine will have to be sold in grocery stores. In the beginning, the granting of grocers’ wine licences would have to take place sparingly.

Generally speaking, I think that this is a very good Bill. It is a positive step in the right direction. The hon. member for Constantia devoted a great deal of attention to the need to educate the public of South Africa, considering that liquor is being distributed far more freely overseas. I think this Bill meets with the requirements of the educational task that confronts us in this country. We on this side of the House therefore gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Potgietersrus has decided to support the Bill and one of his reasons for supporting this Bill is the question of changing the pattern of drinking. This takes me back to the debate in 1963 when provision was made for the granting of grocers’ wine licences and this was indeed the same argument that was used back in 1963. So, it would appear that the pattern of drinking did not change as a result of the granting of grocers’ wine licences. Again the same arguments are being heard that the Bill will undoubtedly lead to an extension of the number of outlets for the distribution and sale of wine. Included in the principles of this Bill, particularly in clause 2 and clause 8, provision is made for an extension of grocers’ wine licences and for that reason I intend voting against the Second Reading of the Bill. I did not come to the decision of voting against a Bill of this nature lightly, because obviously I doubt whether there is anybody who is a total prohibitionist.

We know that it is not practical to advocate a total prohibition. Therefore one has to view this type of legislation with a balanced view of the vested interests and the welfare of the people. I believe that with the provision of further outlets the welfare of the people should be taken into consideration and at the same time one should not lose sight of the fact that there are vested interests. Consequently, people who adopt an attitude of trying to curtail or restrict the number of outlets for the sale of liquor are often accused of trying to wreck vested interests. The hon. member for Durban North in fact referred to this matter.

However, the hon. member for Constantia, who is unfortunately not in the House at the moment, talked about the virtues of having virtually a free sale of particularly wine. But wine is, after all, also liquor, and so one has to take that into consideration as well. The evidence he produced is completely contradicted by other evidence that has come to light. He dealt with the position in France. Recently I too read an article dealing with the position in France. I quote—

A study was undertaken by Prof. Paul Perrin and in his book on alcoholism in France he supplied evidence given by 1 667 doctors and came to the conclusion that wine was the beverage most frequently held responsible for alcoholism. This is the position in France.

The question of having free access to wine and making it more freely available as a method of dealing with alcoholism, certainly seems to be a very strange way of dealing with this very serious problem. Obviously it is the making of intoxicating liquor more freely available which can lead to alcoholism. As I have said, when this Bill has been passed, we shall see a greater number of outlets for the sale of liquor. Obviously hon. members who have wine farmers in their constituencies believe that this will is a way to increase the sale of wine. I too believe the main purpose of this Bill is to provide for a greater number of outlets in order to increase the sale of wine. I do not believe that the changing of the pattern of drinking applies any longer, because obviously the pattern of drinking has not changed. The hon. member for Potgietersrus has referred to the fact that it is now necessary to have this legislation to change that pattern of drinking. I should like to make an appeal to hon. members on that side of the House. The official Opposition and the NRP indicated that this is a matter of conscience which should be decided upon by a free vote. We have often heard of the traditions in this House which are regarded with such high esteem and such jealousy by hon. members. I therefore believe that hon. members in the Government benches should be entitled to a free vote, just as there was a free vote in 1963. The hon. the Minister of Justice referred to the debate which took place in 1963. Those of us who were members of the House at that time will remember that it was an entirely free vote.

One of the main principles of the Bill of 1963 was the extension of grocers’ wine licences. I should just like to remind the House that on that occasion I moved an amendment in the Committee Stage to delete the provision dealing with the issue of grocers’ wine licences, upon which the committee divided. In this regard I can refer to Hansard, 13 June 1963, cols. 7844-5. That amendment was defeated by 72 votes to 57 votes, by a majority of 15 votes. That was a very small majority indeed when one takes into account that this was an issue which was decided by an entirely free vote. The then Minister of Justice, the hon. B. J. Vorster, took into account the fact that there had been this opposition and announced that he would delay the issue of grocer wine licences for a period of nearly two years. He gave an undertaking that this particular section would not come into operation until 1 March 1965. This undertaking he gave in col. 7843. Very strong feelings were expressed at that time and it was said that this could lead to a greater problem as far as alcoholism was concerned. This was one of the points propounded by the 57 members who voted against the extension of grocers’ wine licences.

What do we find today? The pattern of drinking has not changed. Strong liquor is still being consumed in high quantities. We still have social problems caused by an increase in the incidence of alcoholism and the abuse of liquor. It is no good hon. members asking how this can be related to the abuse of liquor. The problems of liquor abuse and alcoholism start with the consumption of alcoholic beverages—and wine is an alcoholic beverage. I believe that the position as it was in 1963 indicated that these problems already existed at that time. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments the hon. member for Hillbrow has used, but I agree entirely with the point of view he put forward here. There is the tremendously high divorce rate, and any welfare worker of a welfare organization and marriage-guidance counsellors will tell one that alcoholism, or rather heavy and excessive drinking, is a major cause of the breaking up of family life. We notice that there are over 10 000 children of all race groups in children’s homes. A large number of those children are there as a result of the breaking up of family life caused by excessive drinking. This is a serious social problem. We also find that the problem of child abuse has become more apparent in recent times, invariably as a result of excessive drinking. This is a major social evil that we have in South Africa, and every responsible member of this House should think very carefully indeed before voting for a Bill which is going to provide further outlets and create a situation in which there is going to be a greater consumption of liquor as a result of the promotion of greater sales of liquor. Obviously this is the objective.

The hon. the Minister referred to the question of wine counters in supermarkets. Here in the Western Cape we are going to see a number of wine counters in the supermarkets. We know that in particularly the Coloured community in the Western Cape excessive drinking is unfortunately one of the major social evils and we are going to encourage this by having counters at which there will be advertising displays lauding the various so-called advantages there might be in partaking of alcoholic beverages. [Interjections.] It is all well and good to treat this matter lightly, but I believe this is a retrogressive step. There is going to be advertising on a major scale at these counters. A housewife who is struggling to exist on her budget as far as food is concerned, will be encouraged to buy liquor when she goes shopping. Perhaps there may even be a price war and various discounts may be offered whereby people will be encouraged to buy wine so that when they leave that supermarket they will have spent on wine some of the money they should have spent on food. Is this really necessary? I believe that if the market is glutted with grapes, there should rather be some grape juice counters at the supermarkets. Let us see an advertising campaign whereby people are encouraged to drink more grape juice or fruit juice. That I shall support wholeheartedly. But by the passing of this Bill a situation will be created in which people will be encouraged to buy liquor. By encouraging those people to buy liquor, I believe we are playing with a very severe social danger.

There is another aspect I should like to raise in respect of the easier availability of wine at these outlets. Young people of 15 or 16 years of age who go to a supermarket will also be reading all these advertisements and displays. I want to say that these advertisements will be very irresponsible advertisements, as can be seen from the way liquor is now advertised. The same will be done in respect of wine advertisements in supermarkets. One will get all sorts of suggestions about the great health benefits that can be derived from the drinking of wine. It will be a great temptation to these young people when they go to a supermarket and see these advertising displays promoting alcoholic beverages such as wine.

We in this House have passed legislation providing that liquor should not be sold to people until they attain the age of 18 years when they will have better judgment. We know that, as far as off-sales and bottle stores are concerned, the owners strictly adhere to the law by not admitting people under the age of 18 years to the bottle store. The provision not allowing persons under the age of 18 years into a bottle store and, certainly, not allowing them to be served in a bottle store is, I believe, a highly necessary provision. It is a great contradiction of that provision in the Liquor Act, however, to make liquor available in supermarkets where young people will be encouraged to buy liquor. We know that these young people will be encouraged to buy it, because the whole purpose of having such a counter is to increase the sale of wine. I believe this is a dangerous step to take. This country is very proud of its young people and has reason to be proud of them. Let us not place a temptation before them that could aggravate a social evil which already exists in this country.

I believe that the Government should allow its members to have a free vote, as they had in 1963, to judge whether the granting of grocers’ wine licences has been successful or not. If they believe it has been successful, do they really believe that an extension of such outlets will be to the benefit of the country and promote the welfare of the people as a whole? I intend voting against the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the hon. member for Umbilo that alcoholism is a social evil, but that is as far as my agreement with him goes. I do not believe for a moment that the extension of sales of Cape wines in grocery stores will promote alcoholism. A few of the speeches I have heard this afternoon have made my mouth water—not for the glass of water which the hon. the Minister is offering me, but a glass of delicious Cape wine with a delicious dinner. If we are so fortunate as to have sea-food such as crayfish or perlemoen, then it will be a glass of delicious Cape white wine, but if we have to content ourselves with a steak, it will be a glass of red wine. Since previous speakers have made my mouth water for that glass of wine, and to enable me to go and enjoy that wine with my dinner, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.