Mr. Speaker, you will notice that the motion on the Order Paper is somewhat different to the one of which I gave notice yesterday. Tuesday is omitted in this motion. This was done in view of the fact that the State President is to be designated on Tuesday. That will be followed by his inauguration. Accordingly the hours of sitting on Tuesday will be as they have been up to now. This will mean fewer hours of sitting and consequently I hope that they will meet with general approval.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to express the protest of the PFP against this particular suggestion. I want to be fair to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, he gave us reasonable notice of his intention to ask that the House should sit during mornings. Secondly, this seems to have become the pattern of this House over the past few years. Having said that, I should like to point to a number of objections which we have to the circumstances in which this motion has been forwarded.

If one looks at the Order Paper, one sees there are still some 34 items which have to be dealt with in this House and in addition we have already had notice of further legislation. Many of these measures are highly controversial. Several of them are extremely complicated. If one looks at the Finance Bill, for example, one sees that it in fact needs a long time for deliberation and decision. If one looks at the Order Paper, one sees there are still many amendments to be disposed of, apart from amendments that may be moved in the ordinary course during debates. We are in fact being presented with a situation where we are going to have to deal with approximately 30 to 40 items in the course of the next three or four days.

I have been brought up to believe that the Supreme Court always closes at quarter past four, unless there is an emergency. The judges are of the opinion that after quarter past four they can no longer dispense justice. So I believe that we cannot, as a legislative body, sit in the mornings, afternoons and evenings and legislate with the propriety, dignity and thoroughness which can be expected from the highest body in the country. It must not be forgotten that we are not legislating for our own convenience. We are not here as a kind of puppet show. We are in fact making laws that affect the lives of ordinary citizens. That is a tremendous responsibility.

I want to make a suggestion. If it looks as if this pattern is to become endemic in our parliamentary system—it looks like it because it happens every year—then the time has come when the Leader of the House should consider holding a proper and full inquiry into the sittings of this House. I think the time has come for us to have a look at our total system, the question of the executive sitting in Pretoria, the whole question of the hours of sitting of the House and whether or not we should have a longer session, two sessions or more. We must also have a look at how the programme of legislation can be properly devised. I know it has been attempted in the past and that it has been abortive, but the question has become so extreme now that that kind of total inquiry is overdue. I fear that when the Government side had no scruples about adjourning early on days during the past few weeks and months, they did not foresee the emergency that would arise towards the end of the session. We have had liberal sitting hours in the past and we even took days off. I believe this shows, if nothing else does, the paralysing effect the Information scandal has had on the Government. What has happened, is that the Government obviously have not done their homework. They have introduced legislation very late in the day and are now compounding the problem by attempting to force that legislation through Parliament at this late hour. We protest against this in the strongest possible terms.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition has raised a very interesting point in asking for an investigation into the length of sessions and whether Parliament might not be very much better served by having two sessions in the course of a year. I think the Leader of the House should look into this matter with very great diligence and come forward with a proposal on this to the House perhaps next year.

I feel that this year we have done pretty well indeed to come to what is projected to be the last week of the session before a motion for morning sittings had to be introduced. I think that is an indication that there has been very good co-operation between the parties during the session. With further co-operation we ought to get through next week with a minimum of fuss and bother and still be able to end the session in a reasonable fashion, without having to do injustice to the legislation still to come before the House.

I think a careful study of the Order Paper will reveal that some 10 of the 34 items on the Order Paper will probably not be debated. In the circumstances, the NRP will support the motion by the hon. Leader of the House. The only guarantee I would like to have from the hon. Leader of the House is that no more legislation will be introduced. I think to give notice of the introduction of a Bill, as was done this morning, is very late notice indeed. The Sales Tax Amendment Bill and the Income Tax Bill have, however, been available to us in draft form for some time and we are ready to debate them right now, if necessary. So, I do not think we are going to be put under undue pressure by the programme for next week and therefore we will support the motion of the hon. Leader of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I really do not have a guilty conscience when I introduce this motion. I think that in general I must agree with the hon. member for Mooi River that so far we have had excellent co-operation from all parties this session and that we have in fact had a relatively easy session as well. Occasionally we adjourned a little earlier in the evening with the consent of all parties, but there was always work to keep us busy until reasonably late in the day. It is true that it has become the practice for the pace to be stepped up a little over the years towards the end of a session in order to finish and I am afraid, with the experience I have of this House, that whatever happens, this will always be the case. Hon. members are inclined to make their speeches longer. The opportunity to speak is there. Besides hon. members are eager to discuss certain subjects. They have every right to do so, of course, but towards the end we find that we have to finish on a specific day and then we are compelled to make the hours of sitting longer than they would otherwise have been.

The hon. member for Groote Schuur referred to a judge who goes home at a quarter past four because by that time he has already had a full day behind him. However, the difference is that there is not one judge in this House, but 165. Consequently I do not think that the hon. member’s example is applicable. A judge is alone on his Bench. Here we are 165.

135 of them do not think at all.

There are 165 hon. members here who can keep the House occupied.

It may also be accepted that a considerable number of the Orders of the Day will die a natural death at the end of the session. There are Orders of the Day that deal with the reports of certain Select Committees, and it is customary that some of them are not discussed or dealt with. In addition we shall not proceed with certain Bills either.

To support my motion I want to point out that in my opinion there are not many contentious Orders of the Day left Yesterday we heard the statement on the Advocate-General Bill and I assume that for the rest there will only be a minimal discussion of the Bill. Another consideration is that from now until the end of this session we shall for the most part be dealing with financial measures. Consequently there will be a greater measure of unanimity up to the end of the session than has been the case up to now. Therefore it ought not to create too many problems for hon. members when they prepare themselves to participate in the discussion of those measures.

In these circumstances I believe that the motion is a reasonable one.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

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

The amendment is in accordance with the undertaking I gave during the Second Reading debate yesterday.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. the Minister has said, the amendment is in accordance with an offer he made yesterday. It is certainly an improvement and much fairer to people who might have invested since 1 January 1979. We would have liked it if the operative date could have been 1 June, but we realize that this is a compromise and therefore we accept it.

We have another quarrel with the clause and I therefore move as an amendment—

This would make it mandatory for permits to be given to people who were already operating on 1 April 1979. During the Second Reading debate the hon. the Minister did explain his reasons for empowering the Road Transportation Commission not to grant permits under certain circumstances, but I believe that people who have invested in good faith should have a right to continue with their operations. I would even go further and extend some of the arguments. I used in the Second Reading debate. I believe that this is a service that is here to stay. I believe that it should be part of the pattern of transport operations in South Africa and that the people who have operated this service have proved the need for such a service. We on these benches can therefore not agree with the phasing out of the service, if that is to be the case.

The hon. the Minister has made the point that there is nothing to stop people from going to the board to ask for a permit. He said there is no reason why that should not continue. In reality, however, people who have dealt with boards know very well indeed that when objections come from the S.A. Railways there is no chance of getting a permit I do not believe that it should be the decision of the S.A. Railways. I believe that because of the establishment of a service which is a useful and needed service in South Africa, it is for this Parliament to decide whether or not it should continue. I think we give too much power to the board in making such decisions. The amount of petrol used by this service is minimal, as I pointed out during the Second Reading debate, and we believe that it is a service that should remain. I should like the hon. the Minister therefore, in his reply, to give his opinion about this service and to indicate whether it is the intention to phase it out completely, or whether he sees this service continuing to operate in the future. Certainly people who are already operating should, we believe, have the right—in other words, it should be mandatory for them—to get permits. This should be done in preference to giving the commission the right to forbid permits.

Mr. Chairman, I am rather surprised that the hon. member has come forward with this motion, for I think it is quite unfair. I shall start off by agreeing with him that there might be merit in this type of service, and that indeed there is. I do not think this is the time now to enlarge on everything again. However, I should just like to mention a single aspect of this service that does have merit, and that is the fact that the service is rendered from doorstep to doorstep, from door to door. In the nature of things, that makes this type of service very attractive. However, it is not necessary for me to digress on that. I merely wish to say that what the hon. member is asking for here is that we should give these people, but no one else, an entrenched right As far as I know, no one else has an entrenched right in road transport legislation, but he wants us to give them an entrenched right. In other words, if we were to accept the amendment of the hon. member it would mean that a permit would have to be granted to these people. So if we were perhaps to come to the conclusion next year that as a result of the problems being experienced with the acquisition of oil, this service was an absolute waste of fuel and that this type of transportation should be operated in another way, we would not be able to withdraw the permits. The only way in which it would then be possible to withdraw the permits would be by means of the amendment of the relevant legislation by Parliament. For those reasons it is in no way possible for me to accept the amendment I spelled out clearly yesterday that these people had already incurred costs and had made a capital investment. The fact that they are participating in the industry under circumstances that are at variance with the philosophy of the 1977 legislation is not relevant. They have a vested right and we should like to give recognition to that vested right. Consequently, the fact that they were already engaged in this business on 1 April this year will be taken into account in the consideration of their applications, but I cannot in any way consent to our giving them an entrenched right to proceed with this type of business.

Mr. Chairman, I just want clarity from the hon. the Minister. He has accepted the vested right and the investment which he feels the operators are entitled to have protected. However, if he accepts that principle, why must there be doubt about whether that principle, which he accepts, should be applied or not? As long as it is optional, it is not necessary for a board to apply what the hon. the Minister wants to have applied, viz. to allow the protection to be effective. It seems illogical to first say that one is doing this to protect an investment, and then to say that one is not prepared to state in legislation that it must be protected. Is there not here a conflict between what he wants to achieve and the optional decision he is allowing the board to make? They may say they do not give a dam about one’s investment and are not going to give one a permit. Then it becomes only one of the nine or 10 other factors that have to be taken into account.

I agree that these people have used a loophole and that we have to take action.

Some of them.

They were not, however, aware that a stop would be put to it. They knew they were taking advantage of a loophole. Like anybody who finds something he can do legally, in his own interest and for his own benefit, they took advantage of that. The hon. the Minister feels that he does not want to punish them financially for having done so by making their investment a wasted one. If that is accepted, I do not see why there should not be a stronger than permissive indication of it in law. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain that conflict.

Mr. Chairman, in his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister said that both the Federation of Road Transportation Associations and the Transport Consultative Committee had adopted the same viewpoint that we in these benches are adopting at this moment I would go so far as to say that this amendment is really almost meaningless, in terms of protection for the people who have invested in this form of transport, because at any rate they could apply to their local board for a permit and be given one. One of the reasons they could give is that theirs is an established service that is already in operation and that there is a need for it So if he does give discretion to the National Transport Commission, he is doing so to no real purpose, because it could be given at any rate. We want it to be mandatory because we believe that these people, having done something which was within the law, are entitled to the protection of their investment.

The hon. the Minister said in his speech that he was unable to anticipate the decision of the National Transport Commission in this respect. If we are not able to do that, it is quite clear that the National Transport Commission can do what it likes and take other things into consideration. I do not know what other things the hon. the Minister feels should be taken into consideration. Perhaps he can tell us, but we believe it is our duty to protect the investment of those people, who have done something which was quite within the law, rather than to remove their rights, something we think would be very unfair indeed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Orange Grove and Durban Point want the interests of these people to be taken into account. Those people made use of a deficiency in the Act and established an industry knowing full well, I surmise, that this was not the intention of the Act. They should have known that there was a likelihood of a rectification being made. Howbeit, the fact of the matter is that since they have now obtained a vested right we now want to grant them certain privileges that would enjoy preference above those of other people. What hon. members are now requesting, is that we should give these people a guaranteed right. But how can I give those who have transgressed, knowing that they were transgressing, more than I give to other people? If I were to give them a guaranteed right, I should be giving them more than I was giving any other applicant. One is entitled to that, but I am now being expected to give them that right.

An ordinary permit that is granted, is permanent and is not renewable every year. Would it not be the same in this case, that they would be obtaining the same right as the transport operators who do have permits? They can be cancelled subject to certain conditions or circumstances.

During the discussions with the organizations, the idea was that this type of business should be phased out and I should like this idea to persist; it should persist. That was agreed to in the negotiations. I am now giving something by indicating in the legislation that those people who have been doing this type of business, who have obtained this right, will receive special treatment from the National Transport Commission owing to the fact that they have vested rights. After all, I cannot do more than that I should like to repeat: Suppose there is no longer any fuel next year and the Railways is compelled to take its road transportation service off the roads. Then I would not be able to touch them. In other words, regardless of all circumstances in respect of fuel, whatever they may be, they would have a guaranteed right to continue. Surely I could not agree to that.

It is therefore not possible for me to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has made a good point in support of his case. I wonder whether I may just put a suggestion to him. The fact that the situation that has arisen indicates that there is a significant need for the kind of service that was offered, suggests that there are a lot of people who can use this kind of service. While we do accept the hon. the Minister’s argument, I wonder whether he will consider the fact that the need for this service arose because in some instances the delivery time of the Railways, their delivering at the end point, was not always competitive with the time structure offered by the private operators. The hon. the Minister has made a very valid point about fuel and fuel saving. We are aware of the fact that in the major cities the Railways make use of large delivery vehicles which consume a considerable amount of fuel. It is also not uncommon to see a large delivery vehicle with only a couple of small parcels on the back. These are the sort of parcels which are being conveyed by the type of transport which is under discussion. Therefore I should merely like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he consider, in view of the fact that the people who are now using this type of service should not suffer further time delays, whether the Railways themselves cannot use smaller vehicles, for example 1 000 kg vehicles, for speedy delivery within urban areas and that the larger parcels—one could take a cut-off figure of, say up to 40 kg parcels for small vehicles—be delivered by the horse and trailer vehicles which have a higher fuel consumption.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea is of course venturing into a completely different field now. I should just like to say that hon. members, and particularly the hon. member for Change Grove, know very well what the intention of the concession in the original Act was, the concession that is now being withdrawn. I think the hon. member remembers full well that this question was continually put to transportation contractors and associations that gave evidence before the commission at the time. The question was whether, if the commission were to make the concession that one ton pick-ups, or 1 000 kg pick-ups, whatever the description, were to be exempted, this would lead to any abuse. In consequence of the representations that were continually being addressed to the commission by retail traders and others, the commission wanted to go into this question. There was the case, for example, of a woman who had a little farm store in the Clanwilliam area and who had to travel to Cape Town to buy supplies. She made representations to the commission asking whether she could not be permitted to convey her supplies herself. The sole intention of the commission was that that type of case should be accommodated. I personally made inquiries in this regard with many persons and bodies. I asked a large transportation company whether this would be an economical proposition or whether it could lead to abuse. The man in charge of this transportation company … [Interjections.] … controls 25% of pick-ups of this nature.

More than 25%.

Yes, actually more than 25%. This man stated in evidence before the commission that this would never be an economical proposition to a transportation contractor since his overhead costs with regard to drivers, etc., would be too high. In other words, the person who was being affected most profoundly by the limitations for which provision is being made in this legislation, knew that he was running a calculated risk He knew that he was exploiting a loophole in the Act and that this would be rectified in due course. At all times, the commission notified persons and bodies giving evidence before it that if abuses were to arise as a result of the concession, the legislative authority would have no alternative but to reconsider the legislation. Knowing full well that this would be the situation, people nevertheless made use of this loophole.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to state these few facts as a background.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with most of what the hon. Chief Whip has said. Certainly, when the commission looked into the Road Transportation Act and considered this question, the intention was completely different in that we did not envisage the situation where bakkies would be used for the purpose for which they are used at the moment. But the spirit behind legislation is not the legislation itself. The point I am making is that it is our shortcomings as legislators that have caused this situation and not so much people taking advantage of loopholes.

I agree entirely with the hon. member, in reference to one particular operator, that he gave evidence completely to the contrary—he said it would be unprofitable—and then went into the business straight away. I do not actually feel very sorry for him, but I do feel sorry for everybody else who might have gone into it in good faith and who did not give evidence before the commission. It is our shortcomings as legislators that are under scrutiny at the moment. Those operators who are now operating went into the business legally. It was within the law for them to do so, and on that basis I believe we must not take it out on them because we have transgressed as legislators. I believe they are entitled to protection. I can see a situation developing where, for reasons elsewhere in the Act, those permits might be withdrawn, but I stand by my view that this is a service which should not be phased out entirely. The situation can be investigated and rationalized, but there is a need for this service. On that basis established operators who have invested a considerable amount of money, more than R3 million, deserve protection by right and not by the whim of the National Transport Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I get the impression that not all hon. members quite understand yet what this matter is all about At the moment the position is—in terms of the specific legislation—that one ton pick-ups are absolutely exempted. They have not been placed under the jurisdiction of the Road Transportation Board. That means that any person may use a one ton pick-up for transportation business without obtaining a permit in advance.

Not as carriers in terms of the proposed new measure.

Of course, not in terms of the amendment, but in terms of the Act of 1977. They are therefore free to do business. All we are saying now is that in 1977 it was not the intention that one ton pick-ups should be free to do business. That was not the intention at all. Since it appears that business is now being done in this way, these one ton pick-ups must now, like all other vehicles, be placed under the jurisdiction of the Act. That is the implication of the amendment.

All we are saying now—and I should like to address this to the hon. member for Berea—is that there is no impediment at all. Anybody, regardless of whether or not he has ever been engaged in this type of business, may apply to the Road Transportation Board tomorrow or in future for a permit to do business with a one ton pick-up. He is absolutely free to do so. If he is then entitled to a permit on merit, the Road Transportation Board will grant him one.

The hon. member referred to the Railways. The whole matter of transportation in South Africa will have to be rationalized on account of the changing circumstances, particularly in view of the fuel situation. The hon. member may rest assured that a substantial rationalization will have to take place in future on the Railways, since the Railways have undertaken, with regard to their road transportation as well, to effect a saving of 20% on its fuel consumption within the next six months. Rationalization will simply have to take place. However, my objection to the motion of the hon. member for Orange Grove is that if we were to agree to it, we would lose control completely over those people who are already in the business. I want to give them some measure of protection. In fact, I think the organizations have agreed to that However, there still has to be some control over them.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not believe that motivating people towards saving petrol would be better than enforcing it through the law? [Interjections.] I refer, for example, to a situation where, in spite of an undertaking from the industry that they would make a certain cut, we have in fact now reached a situation in which 90% of temporary permits are going to be forbidden.

That is another story.

Mr. Chairman, that is not in issue at the present moment. Whether we want to save fuel or not is not at all in issue at the present moment. It may become an issue in the future. All I should like to do is to have my hands free and to have the hands of the commission free to deal with the matter should it become an issue in time to come.

Amendment moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Transport agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, we shall, of course, support the Third Reading because of the amendment the hon. the Minister made to clause 1 during the Committee Stage. I should just like to take the opportunity of saying, in regard to the operations of the National Transport Commission, that the proposed new section l(d)(w) allows “conveyance in the manner and on the conditions prescribed by regulation of goods” in various instances. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that operations of the law are being circumscribed too much by regulation, I believe to the detriment of the transport industry as a whole. I again refer to the situation in regard to temporary permits. A recent announcement by the department indicated that temporary permits were going to be cut by 90%. I do not believe that that is really in the spirit of the law as it stands. I do not believe it is in the spirit of the Act, and we have heard a lot during this discussion about that.

The net result is going to be that many transport contractors will have to go out of business. Their capital investment is going to go by the board. I had an instance of this yesterday. I heard that spare parts in Port Elizabeth can no longer be carried, in spite of the fact that a factory outside Port Elizabeth cannot produce fast enough. The only way that the motor industry as such is being kept going, however, is by transporting spare parts by road. An application for this permit has now been turned down.

If the law is going to be implemented in this manner, I believe we are heading for disaster. We are treating many road transport operators very unfairly indeed. I therefore want to request the hon. the Minister to please look into the situation. The industry has undertaken to cut its petrol usage, so I do not think it should be necessary, on that basis, for us to force them, by the withdrawal of temporary permits, to go out of business. If the industry does not meet its commitment to cut its petrol usage, one can reconsider the matter. However, in the face of an undertaking to ration themselves, I think the National Transport Commission is behaving very unfairly.

Mr. Speaker, we shall also support the Third Reading of this Bill. As I could not do so in the Second Reading, I want to take this opportunity of saying my farewells and expressing my good wishes to the hon. the Minister. He and I have worked together ever since he became Minister of Transport, though I was active before he became Minister. It has been a long, very pleasant and happy association. I have found the hon. the Minister a person with whom one can work in the closest harmony. I should therefore not like to miss this opportunity of putting my sincere sentiments on record and of thanking him for the years we have been associated and have worked together.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the SAP cannot be present as he is at a meeting at the moment However, on behalf of the SAP I should like to record our sincere appreciation to the hon. the Minister and also to wish him a very fond farewell. He knows that he has a very special place in the hearts of hon. members of the SAP. We should like to wish him and his wife everything of the best for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Durban Point and to the hon. member for Walmer for the nice things they have just said to me. The hon. member for Durban Point and I have come a long way together. We often travelled together for long distances in the days when our police were still doing border duty. It has been a pleasant association. I thank them very sincerely for the good wishes they conveyed to me.

I even caught my first fish in his company!

In reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove I should just like to state that the arrangements that have now been made with a view to fuel conservation, do not actually fall within my province. That was undertaken by a committee on which various persons and bodies were represented. Following the report of that committee it was decided that efforts should be made to conserve fuel in specific fields. One of the proposals accepted was that these temporary permits should be cut by 90%. That was not done through the instrumentality of the National Transport Commission. I sympathize completely with the hon. member because I know that as a result of these measures, whether it is a 20% cut-back of ordinary permits or a 90% cut-back of temporary permits, certain people are going to suffer. However, we are all going to suffer as a result of the fuel crisis we are experiencing at present and which we shall also experience in future. We are therefore compelled to take certain measures. As I have said, I sympathize with the hon. member, but unfortunately we have no alternative. The chairman of the National Transport Commission assures me that it is not correct to state that there are going to be serious cut-backs of these temporary permits. Temporary permits will still have to be issued, and depending upon circumstances, we shall probably not reduce them by 90%. This is possible, but I fear the country, and not the National Transport Commission, is compelled to do this for the sake of fuel conservation.

On this special occasion I should also, on behalf of the Chair and the officials at the Table, like to convey our sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister.

Hear, hear!

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, half of the trouble in South Africa, I believe, is that Ministers, Deputy Ministers and members of the Government who blithely pass laws in this House that affect the lives of millions of people never actually come into contact with the people whose lives are so affected. They therefore really have no first-hand knowledge of how the laws operate or of the devastating effect that they can have. The officials who have to implement those laws do, however, come face to face with the persons concerned, but they, of course, do not have the responsibility of having created the law and are therefore able to nationalize and carry on with their jobs.

This Bill includes provisions—I refer specifically to clause 5—which we in these benches believe will have just such a devastating effect. Clause 5 provides for a fine on employers who employ persons who do not qualify to be in the urban areas under the provisions of section 10(1) of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. It provides for a fine of up to R500 for a first offence and not less than R500 for a second offence. There are literally thousands of people who are employed who do not qualify to be in the urban areas in terms of the provisions of section 10(1), and some of them have been with the same employers for many years.

I think of the many White women who employ Black domestic female staff, without whose help they could not use their own professional skills and expertise in the world of commerce and the professions in order to assist in raising South Africa’s gross national product A large number of these domestics are not legally present in terms of the influx laws, especially in the Western Cape which is a Coloured labour preference area, but elsewhere in the Republic as well, because the urban areas have by and large all being closed to Black women for many years. Now, what are these Black women supposed to do? Their families need help. Many of these Black women have either been deserted, are unmarried, or their husbands have disappeared into the urban areas and no longer support them. Their families are starving, and there is no work for them in the homelands, and what work there is, I might add, is pitifully badly paid. At Dimbaza I know of one factory where women working in the factory are paid R4 a week.

The same applies, of course, to the many illegal Black male employees in the urban areas. For them, too, there are no alternative jobs in the homelands. During the course of the debate the hon. the Deputy Minister made an extraordinary remark. He implied that there was no problem about employers registering employees. He said they simply had to take the trouble to do so. He used the words “die moeite om so te doen”. If only that were so, but of course it is not so. Blacks who do not qualify in terms of section 10(1), or who are not contract workers, have no hope of being registered except under the most exceptional circumstances, i.e. in terms of the provisions of section 10(1)(d) which allows the Chief Commissioner to give permission for a person, who does not fall into the categories mentioned in section 10(l)(a), (b) or (c), to remain in the urban area for a period longer than 72 hours. The hon. the Deputy Minister is nodding his head, so what did he mean when he said, in the earlier stages of this debate, that it is very simple because the employer only has to show that the person concerned has a job and that accommodation is provided, in which case the employee can be registered. That is not so. I refer again to the thousands of Black domestic workers who have accommodation on their employers’ properties and who have been in the employ—some of them, at least— of the same employers for many years. I am, in fact, beseiged by desperate employers wanting to get their domestic employees and other employees, gardeners and so on, registered, and when I know the circumstances of the case, I have to advise those people that they have no hope of getting them registered because those people entered the urban areas and stayed on illegally and may consequently not be registered. I have accompanied some of them to registration offices in a vain attempt to get some of these people registered, but it is only, I must tell the hon. the Deputy Minister, in the most exceptional circumstances— for example if an employer is bedridden and has perhaps had a faithful domestic looking after her for many years— that one can sometimes get a concession in terms of section 10(l)(d) and have the person registered. Otherwise, let me assure the hon. the Minister, it is not a case of “just taking the trouble” to have them registered, because employers would certainly take the trouble if they were only given the assurance that by doing so they would be able to have people legally in their employ and would no longer run the risk of being fined and that the employees would no longer run the risk, which they run hourly in South Africa, of being picked up by the police for not having their reference books correctly stamped. Employers would take the trouble, believe me, and that is why I once again ask the hon. the Deputy Minister seriously to consider this point He does not need a law to do this. These people can be handled in the same way as were the many thousands of Rhodesian and Malawian employees who were in South Africa illegally. A moratorium was declared and a period of time given during which employers, if they could give a clean character reference of the person concerned and could show that the person had been in the employ of the same employer for some months, could legally register those employees.

I really do ask the hon. the Minister seriously to consider whether he cannot see his way clear to declaring such a moratorium and allowing these people to be registered, because what is going to happen otherwise, after this Bill has been passed? Hundreds of people—in fact thousands, I should think, without exaggeration—will lose their jobs because employers will not run the risk of being fined up to R500 for a first offence and not less than R500 for a second offence, and let me point out that the people who will lose their jobs are working people and not idlers or undesirable characters. The employees will not just pack their bags and return to the homelands, because there is nothing for them there. They will rather stay on in urban areas in the hope of finding another employer who will perhaps give them a job. Eventually, if they do not get a job, driven to desperation in the knowledge that their families are starving, they will do what any other human being does in those circumstances. They will turn to crime. I predict that there will be a steep increase in the rate of petty crime, urban crime of all kinds including theft and mug going, in South Africa if this Bill is passed and people who are at present employed are unable to be registered.

Hon. members have talked, and with justification, about employers who take advantage of the situation and exploit people who enter the areas illegally by paying them lower wages as a result. Of course, that does happen in a number of cases. I can only suggest that the only way in which one can prevent that is either by allowing the registration of all employees as members of trade unions, thus enabling them to negotiate with employers. Other employees in the same occupation would soon see to it that those people were not underpaid. Another way to do this is by fixing a minimum wage for people whose occupations are such that it is very difficult for them to become members of trade unions, and I refer to domestic employment in the urban areas in particular. That is the way to do that.

There are other hon. members who have pointed out that there are thousands of Blacks who are legally in the urban areas but who are unemployed. That is also true, and I acknowledge that immediately. However, it is also true that there are many jobs that these people are not prepared to take and which are now being taken by persons who come into the urban areas illegally. There are, for instance, not many Coloured women in this western Cape Coloured preference area who are prepared to be live-in domestic servants. They prefer—and rightly so—to live with their own families in the Coloured townships. However, there are many African women who perforce, because there is no accommodation and because they are in the area illegally, are able and willing to take jobs as live-in domestics in the urban areas. There are also other jobs that are taken by “illegal” Blacks because Coloured people in this area are not prepared to do them.

The building and construction industries.

There are also jobs in other areas. The hon. member for Orange Grove refers to the building and construction industry as an example.

Then I must ask the hon. the Deputy Minister and hon. members of this House why they think that a South African born in an urban area should, as of right, have special privileges over a South African born in a rural area. I wonder how many hon. members of this House have come from rural areas and have made their way to the urban areas, because economic opportunities, job opportunities, are far greater and because training and education may be better in the urban areas, and have stayed there and improved their whole standard of living. This industrialization and urbanization is a natural phenomenon, so I have never understood why it should be accepted, as a matter of course in South Africa, that a Black South African born in a rural area should not enjoy the same right of selling his labour in the best market possible as a Black man born in the urban area. After all, where one happens to be born, is purely accidental. If one is born in a country one is surely, as of right, entitled to have equal opportunities with other citizens born in the same country. I cannot see any logical argument against this.

What the Government is doing now is to implement one of the recommendations of the Riekert Commission, but it is implementing only one of them. It is implementing a negative recommendation of the Riekert Commission, and that is that employers be more heavily penalized for employing Black labour that is not duly registered under influx control laws. Why does the Government not also at the same time implement another recommendation of the Riekert Commission, and that is the withdrawal of all penalties imposed on Blacks who are illegally in the urban areas, in other words, the repeal of the old pass laws in terms of which fines are imposed and thousands upon thousands of Black people are very often gaoled. That is not being done by this Bill. The only thing that is being done is to retain the punitive measures applicable to Blacks who are illegally in the urban areas. The fines, pass arrests and the overcrowding of gaols will continue. At the same time we are enormously—in fact, fivefold—increasing the penalty imposed on employers who employ people who are illegally in the urban areas. That does not make sense and is not what I would call natural justice. For all those reasons I once again implore the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider the question of the moratorium, and at least to discuss it with his own Minister when he returns from his overseas trip, in order to see whether this cannot be done, and to hold up the promulgation of this piece of legislation until he has been able to do that, because the consequences of this Bill have not been thought through by the Government I believe, as I have said, that we are in for a steep increase in urban crime if this measure is carried through in its present form. For the reasons I have tried to outline, we on this side of the House will vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton indicated that the official Opposition would oppose the Third Reading of the Bill mainly because of their opposition to clauses 5 and 10. On this occasion she did not refer to clause 10, however, and consequently I shall also confine myself to clause 5 only.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member said that the official Opposition would oppose the Bill because of their total opposition to measures which place restrictions on the free movement of Black people in order to tell their labour at any place on the labour market. That is the gist of their objection. Furthermore, they maintain that unemployment will increase as a result of the clause in question.

If there is no influx control in South Africa, the greatest chaos imaginable will arise. There will be a total congestion of our White and Black cities and squatting with all the evils that we know will once again be the order of the day. So some kind of practical and fair method of influx control must be found. But to adopt a policy such as the one proposed by the hon. member is to present the Black people who are now outside the White areas with an open invitation to chaos and disorder which could lead to bloodshed. It will drastically change the entire structure of our society; not only that of the Whites, but that of the Blacks as well. I cannot understand how the official Opposition cannot grasp this simple concept.

During the Second Reading debate other Opposition members also spoke about the same question of influx control and the R500 fine.

Order! I allowed a very wide discussion during the Second Reading debate. In any event the principle contained in clause 5 has already been accepted by the House. The only thing under discussion now, is whether the fine should be increased.

Sir, I am coming to that.

I am not going to allow a discussion during the Third Reading debate which should have taken place during the Second Reading debate.

I should like to motivate my view that a fine of R100 is not adequate at the moment.

Will you allow me, however, to refer to the hon. member for Orange Grove who said that a fine of R500 would result in a considerable increase in unemployment. In his speech I found him the most acrimonious, the most virulent and the most cynical member who has ever sat in this House. I also said during the Second Reading debate that there were people and institutions here who were seeking confrontation between Whites and Blacks.

The hon. member said that a R500 fine would cause tremendous unemployment. As a matter of fact, he said that hundreds, thousands of Black people were already being illegally employed. He said the R500 fine would cause unemployment on an unprecedented scale. He added that 30% to 40% of the Black workers in the building industry were already being illegally employed. If it is correct, as the hon. member emphasized, that hundreds, thousands of Black people are being employed and if it is correct that 30% to 40% of the Black people in the building industry are being illegally employed, then surely it destroys their argument that a fine of R500 is too high, for surely this proves very emphatically that a fine of R100 is no deterrent whatsoever. So if it is true that despite a R100 fine—which is fairly high—employers are prepared, according to that hon. member, to employ hundreds of thousands of people, it is irrefutable proof that the fine has become no consideration at all to the employers. Moreover the hon. member for Hillbrow pointed out that there were already thousands of unemployed youths in Soweto. If this is the case, then that hon. member has removed all the validity from the arguments of the Opposition, for why are these people unemployed? They are unemployed because of those hundreds of thousands of people illegally in the employ of the people to whom the hon. member for Orange Grove referred. If those hundreds of thousands of people were not being illegally employed, there would have been more work opportunities for the people of Soweto. The impression is being created by the official Opposition that the R500 fine which is to be introduced, will be instrumental in preventing people from working.

Yes.

But surely this is not true. The hon. member should know that it is not true. In the first place the fine is not imposed on the Black people who are illegally employed, it is a fine that has to be paid by the White and other employers who refuse to register their employees at a small tariff. With this R500 fine the Government wants to protect the very people who are legally residing here, the legal Black workers, against intrusion from outside. Does the official Opposition want to allege that the people who are living here legally are not entitled to any kind of protection and to preferential treatment over the Black people who come from outside the White areas? Does the hon. member for Orange Grove want to allege that I think the Black people are entitled to it. They are entitled to it and the Government has to put measures into practice to make it possible for them. If the fine is increased from R100 to R500 for the very purpose of creating such a measure, I think it is fair and just As regard that hon. member’s argument on unemployment I just want to furnish one example. If there were 10 000 vacancies available for Black people for example, and there are 15 000 legal Black workers to fill those 10 000 vacancies, then we have a serious unemployment problem.

We have.

Correct I am glad the hon. member agrees with me. And if these 15 000 legal workers still have to compete with 10 000 illegal workers from outside the White area, then there will not only be unemployment, there will be chaos which could result in a disaster which those hon. members, if they abolish influx control, will never ever be able to cope with. They will allow the country to go up in smoke and ashes as a result of such a policy.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member how he thinks pushing these illegal Blacks back to the rural areas is going to solve the problem of unemployment.

As a result of the large number of Black workers already there, we shall always have a measure of unemployment. Surely this is logical, but we must not try to aggravate the problem by allowing illegal Blacks to come in as well. This will greatly aggravate the problem. If, as the hon. member is trying to imply now, there should be a free influx, an over-supply will develop on the market, people will have to offer their labour at prices and benefits which will not be favourable to them at all. Like slaves they will once again have to offer their labour to people who will only be prepared to exploit them. They will be exploited to the worse degree imaginable. This seems to be what the official Opposition should like to create, viz. cheap labour which they would then be able to exploit with their policy of no influx control.

Mr. Speaker, I consider this provision essential for creating orderliness in our labour field. I also consider it essential in order to protect people who are here legally. It has been found that the R100 is not a deterrent. Therefore, I hope this fine of R500 will be an adequate deterrent to ensure orderliness on our labour market.

Mr. Speaker, since we have now come to the end of the discussion of this legislation, I should like to thank those hon. members who participated. I regret that the discussion dealt mainly with negative aspects and that there was so little mention of the positive aspects of this legislation. The Bill contains some wonderful and positive pointers. With this legislation we shall be giving added momentum to the community councils, of which there are 164 at the moment I had the opportunity of speaking to two Black leaders this morning. The hon. member for Houghton alleged that we did not know what was going on, but I can tell her that in the past 15 months I have not only spoken to a few thousand but with many thousands of responsible Black people all over the country and not one of them has objected to a regulating process.

I should like to conclude with a few other thoughts since this will be the last occasion on which I shall appear in this House. I want to convey my sincere gratitude to you, Mr. Speaker, the officials and my colleagues. Fortunately I did not have to speak a great deal. We have to take one thing into account in South Africa, viz. an equilibrium between words and deeds. If we do not maintain an equilibrium between what we say and what we do, we are going to cause more and more frustration and confusion. Therefore, I call on hon. members on both sides of the House to maintain that equilibrium at all times so that whatever is said, may also be converted into deeds. With these few words, I want to thank everyone who took part in the debate, once again, for their contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments to the principal Act have been requested by the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board, and, apart from the amendment to section 26bis of the principal Act, make provision for matters concerning accountants and auditors resident and registered in neighbouring States.

In the first place the amendments will enable the Board to enter into an agreement with a body of accountants and auditors in any of the Republic’s neighbouring States to provide assistance with registration and discipline of registered accountants and auditors and with the registration, education and training of articled clerks and such other assistance as may be required until such States establish their own accountants’ boards or other controlling bodies.

Secondly, the provisions of the Bill will enable accountants and auditors of neighbouring States to perform work in the Republic. Such an arrangement can be considered a reciprocal act in view of the fact that it is desirable for accountants and auditors registered and resident in the Republic who performed work in neighbouring States prior to their obtaining independence, to continue to perform work in such States for at least a transitional period, especially where work is being performed for clients who have holding companies in the Republic and subsidiaries in the independent States. I have the assurance of the board that it will extend the right only to accountants and auditors who have approved qualifications.

*Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of section 26bis of the principal Act, an accountants and auditors’ firm with one or more branch offices shall inform each client of the whole firm, in other words, each client of every branch, of any change in the name, constitution or address of the firm. Firms find it a nuisance and expensive to adhere strictly to the present provisions of the Act and for that reason clause 3(b) of the Bill provides that if an accountant and auditor or his firm has a branch office, and one of the said changes takes place, he will be deemed to have complied with the provisions of the Act if he or his firm has notified the board and each person to whom services by such a branch are provided, of the change.

I am satisfied that the amendment is realistic and in the interests of the accountants’ and auditors’ practice, and that it will not make any encroachment upon the rights of the clients.

Mr. Speaker, we find this Bill acceptable and shall support it at Second Reading. As the hon. the Minister has said, it deals with the functions of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board in relation to certain neighbouring territories and with other matters.

I think clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill reflect, to a large extent, the continuing interdependence and integration of various bodies, organizations, institutions and functions in South Africa itself and in its neighbouring territories, whether newly established or established on previous occasions. The fact of economic integration in South Africa is a very real one. I believe that it is entirely sensible that the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Amendment Bill should allow for the conclusion of agreements in such a way that standards may be maintained on an equal basis in respect of work which flows in and out of those territories of the South African complex. I think this is wholly constructive. I merely want to say that it is perhaps a pity— but that matter can be put right later—that the question of fidelity funds is not also provided for directly in this Bill. I do not know whether it is excluded. The way I read the amendment, it might well be in the power of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board to discuss the question of the creation of fidelity funds to cover defalcations or incorrect or improper behaviour by public accountants and auditors. For the same reasons as those justifying clause 1 and 2, it might be found desirable for the standards of security given to the clients of accountants and auditors to be safeguarded in the same way as is done in South Africa by fidelity guarantees.

I now come to clause 3. We think that the arrangement provided for in this clause is an entirely rational one and we have no objection whatsoever to it. It is our purpose to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill has been motivated by the hon. the Minister. We see the functions of auditors and public accountants as being very responsible ones indeed. We particularly welcome the provision that is made for members of the profession in our territory and neighbouring territories to be able to work together, to exchange information and to participate in what amounts basically to an educative function in the territories adjacent to us. We shall support the Bill at all stages.

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with tradition, particularly as far as public accountants and auditors’ associations are concerned, there is usually no opposition when amendments are being effected to an agreed measure. In this way we are following the pattern in the accountants’ profession as it is known to us throughout the world. When South Africa was still a member of the Commonwealth, and before the accountants’ profession in South Africa was united in the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board, there were four different associations in South Africa, one for each province. The most important fact, however, was that there was also the closest liaison with the British accountants’ and auditors’ association at the time. There were agreements in terms of which persons who had qualified in Britain could, on certain conditions, practise in South Africa and people who had qualified in South Africa would practise in Great Britain subject to certain minor qualifications which they had to obtain. In other words, there was always the closest liaison.

The Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Board is tremendously proud of the high moral, ethical and professional standards which are being maintained. So it is correct that with the development here in Southern Africa towards a greater autonomy, the same degree of pride and jealousy should be maintained in the joint development of this profession in South Africa and its neighbouring States. So certain standards are being set for the conduct of public accountants in terms of the high ethical norms which are being upheld in South Africa and its neighbouring states.

The amendments in clause 3 are of a merely practical nature.

I want to express my appreciation for the support for this measure that we are receiving from the Opposition parties. This is a contribution to the continued maintenance of the high professional standards which we always expect of associations of this kind.

Mr. Speaker, we regard the amendments in this Bill all as reasonable. In the circumstances I see no point in debating the matter any further and will, therefore, not oppose this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. members for Constantia, Mooi River, Klip River and Walmer for having seen fit, on behalf of their respective parties, to support this measure. I believe it is a very use fid measure and that it will improve the present situation as regards the aspects in question.

†As far as the question of the Fidelity Fund is concerned, I should like an opportunity to look into it further, and perhaps we can talk about it again.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before the House contains amendments to five Acts administered by the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions, i.e. the Insurance Act, the Pension Funds Act, the Friendly Societies Act, the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act Legislation of this nature is, quite understandably, a hardy annual and deals with a wide range of issues. As in the past I shall confine my remarks to the more important ones.

Before coming to the amendments affecting the specific Acts, I wish to refer to a reduction by the proposed measures in the percentages of prescribed assets and Government securities which insurers, pension funds and banks are required to hold. The reduction is 2% on all such percentages and has been in force since 9 June 1978, when the reduction was originally announced.

When the percentages were increased during 1977, an undertaking was given that the situation would be reviewed as soon as circumstances permit. I am grateful that this could happen so soon.

Regarding the Insurance Act, a very necessary tightening up of the provisions on the furnishing of guarantees is proposed. It is proposed that the Registrar of Insurance be empowered to determine whether a person is furnishing guarantees on such a scale that he is, in fact, carrying on the business of furnishing guarantees and therefore must register under the Act. The present test for determining whether a person is carrying on guarantee business, i.e. whether he is “solely or mainly” carrying on such business, is difficult to apply when a person does not solely carry on such business. Furthermore, a person may not be carrying on the business of furnishing guarantees as his main business activity and yet be furnishing guarantees on a considerable scale, a state of affairs that exists at present. Considerable contingent liabilities arise from these activities, and it is in the interest of the public that persons who grant guarantees as a business should be brought under the discipline of the Insurance Act.

In the second place a provision is proposed to curb and prohibit undesirable practices in the insurance industry. The measure proposed has been recommended in principle by the Commission of Inquiry into the Long-term Insurance Industry, and although the recommendation was in respect of long-term insurance only, it is equally appropriate in the case of short-term insurance. The proposed measure is therefore being applied to the insurance industry as a whole.

The proposed section 23B provides for powers to the Registrar to declare, with the consent of the Minister, a practice or method of conducting business as irregular or undesirable by way of notice in the Government Gazette. In the case of long-term insurers and intermediaries, prior consultation with the Advisory Committee on Long-term Insurance is required by the proposed measures before a declaration is consented to by the Minister. The Registrar is also empowered to direct a person who has made use of such practices or methods, to rectify any state of affairs which resulted from their employment.

In introducing this measure I wish to place on record that it is not being written into the Act because our insurance industry is fraught with undesirable practices. On the contrary, there is every reason to be proud of the way the industry has been, and is, conducting its business. Insurance is a growing industry in which competition for business is keen. In isolated cases practices and methods could be used which are not in the interests of the industry or the public in general. The proposed measures provide the machinery to regulate such practices and methods timeously. Similar measures exist, in one or other form, in many other countries, and there is also a comparable provision in our Banks Act.

The last insurance provision I want to refer to is that dealing with group life insuranvz asfecting persons performing military service. Hon. members will remember that last year legislation, affecting existing life policies insuring the lives of military personnel, was overhauled by amending section 38 and that a completely new approach was introduced in respect of new policies in the new section 38A. The intention with the legislation was to find a balance between the interests of servicemen on the one hand and the willingness of life insurers, on the other hand, to insure persons performing military service. When overhauling the legislation, the position of group life policies which an insurer may amend or cancel was inadvertently overlooked. Such policies are, as far as their terms and conditions are concerned, intended to be of a short-term nature and to be revisable or subject to cancellation, as the case may be, in the light of the underwriting experience with the group in question. They also never give rise to surrender values.

The permanent restrictions imposed by the present provisions are irreconcilable with the idea of amendable or cancellable group life policies. It is therefore proposed, with the concurrence of the Department of Defence, to exempt group life policies which may be amended or cancelled by an insurer from the provisions of section 38 and 38A. It should be pointed out that other group life policies will not be affected.

*As far as the amendments to the Pension Funds Act and the Friendly Societies Act are concerned, there is only one significant change affecting the first-mentioned Act, but I want to point out that in the case of both Acts the power to make regulations is being transferred from the State President to the Minister. The position in this regard is therefore being brought into line with the custom that obtains generally today.

The important change to the Pension Funds Act that is being effected is to enable the pension fund to grant a loan to a member on first mortgage on a surveyed site in a Black urban area in respect of which a right of leasehold is registered. Building societies already have the power to grant loans in Black urban areas, and the proposed amendment ought further to enable Blacks to obtain right of leasehold in their urban areas.

I now come to the amendments to the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act Apart from the reduction in the percentage ratio which a banking institution must maintain in prescribed investments, the Banks Act amendments involve two aspects. Firstly, the classes under which banking institutions may be registered are being reduced in number by deletion of the classes “hire-purchase bank” and “savings bank”. The business done by these two types of banking institution can equally well be done by general banks and as far as the financial and other requirements of the Banks Act are concerned, no distinction is drawn between the three classes mentioned. Consequently there is no point in retaining the three separate classes for registration purposes. The few hire-purchase and savings banks will be reclassified as general banks.

Secondly, the capital requirements for banking institutions are being adjusted. At present, a banking institution that is not a discount house maintains capital and unimpaired reserves amounting to 10% of its liabilities under acceptances on behalf of clients plus 6% of all its other obligations to the public. The Technical Committee on Bank and Building Society Legislation investigated this requirement and came to the conclusion that there was no reason to set a higher requirement in regard to liabilities under acceptances than in the case of other liabilities, and consequently the liabilities relating to acceptance liabilities is being brought into line with that relating to other liabilities, viz. it is being reduced to 6%. Then, too, provision is being made for more flexible implementation of the restriction imposed by the Banks Act on banking institutions with regard to their investments in fixed property and shares in cases where this is deemed necessary.

In terms of the Building Societies Act a building society may repair and renovate the buildings on immovable property that it has bought in due to the neglect of the debtor and can install an electricity, water or sewage system, but where it has bought in unimproved property, it may not effect improvements thereto. At present building societies are finding it extremely difficult to sell such unimproved erven, even at a loss, but would be able to get rid of them without difficulty, without loss and perhaps even with a profit, if they could only build houses on them. In order to accommodate building societies in this regard and enable a budding society possessing a development company to have the construction work on such land carried out by its development company, the powers of both building societies and their development companies are being extended to this effect.

The Building Societies Act is also being amended with a view to promoting the improved State-supported savings scheme for intending house-owners, so that the amount in an account under that scheme is excluded for the purposes of the statutory limit on the amount which a person may hold in a savings account at a building society.

Mr. Speaker, various representative bodies with an interest in the proposed legislation have been consulted and the legislation is acceptable to them. Amendments to the Insurance Act relating to long-term insurance have been submitted to the Advisory Committee on Long-term Insurance and representative organizations of insurers and brokers have also been consulted in regard to the amendments of the Insurance Act. The Association of Pension and Provident Funds has been consulted about the pension fund legislation, and as far as banking and building society legislation is concerned, the Technical Committee on Banks and Building Society Legislation as well as the representative bodies of these institutions have been consulted.

I should like to request the support of this House for the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for his comprehensive explanation of the objects of this rather complex Bill. It is complex because of its comprehensive and varied nature. It includes a range of amendments affecting the Insurance Act, the Pensions Funds Act, the Friendly Societies Act, the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act I shall deal with each of these briefly in that order.

As regards the Insurance Act, we welcome the various reductions in the prescribed assets by 2% in each case, and have no doubt that the greater flexibility allowed to these institutions will be to the advantage of the insurance business and the other businesses concerned as they will have more discretion in the disposal of their assets. I believe it would also be to the advantage of the economy in general in that the very large amounts which are involved in these prescribed assets, will be able to be used with greater flexibility in the more open economy which we are happy to see emerging. Of course, we hope to see a further reduction being made in due course. Before long we shall may be descend to the 30% or equivalent levels which are prescribed in the principal Act. We have no objection to those amendments in the Bill which are designed to clarify or improve other provisions of the principal Act.

However, we have reservations about clause 9. The provisions in clause 9 appear to us to be of a rather too general nature. It is the kind of provision which might be counterproductive in that it might prevent the insurance industry from undertaking the improved developments which it might envisage. I believe that section 23A in the principal Act illustrates what I mean. It makes reference to a particular kind of insurance practice, which is clearly specified and described.

This is then made the subject of a prohibition, or a power to prevent such action from being taken. This is obviously a clear indication to the insurer of the kind of practice the legislature has in mind, and he therefore knows what to avoid. However, in terms of the proposed new section 23B, which is dealt with in clause 9, he has no such clear idea and may be subject to rather arbitrary or precipitate action of which he has received no proper warning. We would prefer the kind of civilized approach which we see from time to time in the case of the Receiver of Revenue. There, for example, the practice of tax avoidance is first of all the subject of a warning by the Receiver of Revenue, the subject of discussion with the Receiver of Revenue and eventually the subject of specific legislation, but I do not think that the Receiver of Revenue exercises the arbitrary power, simply by notice in the Gazette, of outlawing a kind of activity which might have taken a great deal of money to put together, bona fide, and which has become contrary to the public good. The hon. member for Sandton will speak more specifically on this clause, and perhaps we can come to some sort of understanding with the hon. the Minister in regard to the more specific definition of the type of practice which the legislature or the hon. the Minister has in mind.

As regards group life policies, which might be described as being of an impermanent nature in that they can either be amended or cancelled by the insurer, we agree that these cannot really be reconciled with the protection which has properly been given to persons on military service. I believe that the protection which has been given in the case of ordinary policies for people who are on military service cannot effectively be extended to the kind of group life policy which we have in mind here. We therefore support the amendment.

I now come to the Pensions Act Here again we welcome the reductions in the prescribed assets. Clearly a pensions fund— life assurance companies perhaps even more so—needs a good return on its investment in order to deal with the ravages of inflation, both in regard to the conducting of its own business and, more particularly, in regard to the beneficiaries of a pension fund. Therefore we support that provision as well.

In the case of immovable property, which may be lodged as security for the purpose of loans, we greatly welcome the extension of the provision to leasehold rights in Black urban areas. I think this could be a very important improvement to the position of the leaseholder in these areas, by increasing the ability of the Black population in the urban areas to make their own contribution to the acute housing shortages which exist in these areas. We welcome this very strongly.

As regards the Friendly Societies Act we have noted the various amendments, which are approved. Generally they are textual improvements and we have no further comment.

In the case of the Banks Act, once again we welcome the reduction in the paid-up share capital and unimpaired reserves. Flexibility regarding the property investments of banks, to the point of not exceeding the paid-up shares and the unimpaired reserves, will greatly help. I think the banks have been in some difficulty over this provision, particularly in view of the depressed state of the property market, and we hope the hon. the Minister will use his discretion in order to help the banks remedy the disability which has affected their businesses quite severely in some cases.

I now come to the Building Societies Act, 1965. Building societies are now permitted to erect buildings for resale on vacant land recovered from defaulting mortgagees and to have buildings erected by development companies associated with those building societies. We think this is an entirely sensible provision to make. It is one which gives the economy a better chance of recovering and the building societies a chance to flex their financial muscles more freely in the growth society which the hon. the Minister is trying to encourage.

In regard to the ownership saving scheme, we welcome the further provision that contributions made to this scheme need not be taken into account in establishing the upper limit of the amount on which interest may be drawn within a building society savings account If one looks at the effects of inflation, the sharply rising costs of building homes and the rising cost of home-ownership, it is a most realistic measure and one we welcome. The R25 000 limit in regard to savings in depreciated currency should not be encumbered or reduced by the maximum amount of R6 000 under the ownership saving scheme.

On balance this is a portmanteau Bill that contains many varied provisions. Most of the contents are good and deserve support. The others, possibly with the exception of clause 9, do not detract from the general improvements proposed by the hon. the Minister. We shall therefore support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are of course indebted to the Opposition for their support of this Bill. I do not want to discuss this legislation at any length since we are all in agreement on it However, there is one aspect of this legislation that I want to state very clearly. It is obviously a piece of legislation which could probably, if it is to be debated at all, be debated more fruitfully in the Committee Stage. I think it is important that we should note that this legislation is once again a demonstration of the Government’s desire that the capitalist system in South Africa should follow its own course.

The changes proposed in terms of this legislation are all concerned with enabling the private sector to make a better contribution to the economy than before. I also want to react to the concern of the hon. member for Constantia with regard to the provisions of clause 9. I may just as well do this now, because then we need not debate it in the Committee Stage. In this clause provision is made to empower the Registrar, with the consent of the Minister, to declare by notice in the Gazette, a specified practice or method of conducting business an “irregular or undesirable practice” or an “undesirable method of conducting business”. Consequently this provision applies to insurers and intermediaries in insurance. As far as the long-term insurance situation is concerned, the hon. the Minister may grant his permission only after the Registrar has consulted the Advisory Committee on long term insurance. Therefore, what this entails is that the Registrar may only act if the hon. the Minister has given him leave to do so and has given the Advisory Committee the assurance. I do not think the hon. member need be concerned about this aspect. The course that this matter has to follow is, after, all, very clear. The Registrar cannot act arbitrarily in this regard because he will first have to obtain the Minister’s permission. The hon. member for Constantia will agree with me that as far as this type of technical matter is concerned, we depend a great deal on existing committees that possess the necessary technical knowledge in respect of matters of this nature …

Where does it say that the Minister or the Registrar must consult the committee? I do not find it anywhere in this piece of legislation, but only in the report on long term insurance.

The hon. member for Constantia wants to know where this provision appears in the legislation. The hon. member can examine the definitions. The hon. member can examine the clause in question too. This is the whole aim as far as this particular aspect of this legislation is concerned. It is stated in the Bill. Of course I do not take it amiss of the hon. member if he did not quite see it. As I say, this is a technical aspect Unfortunately the hon. member for Yeoville is not here now to assist us with regard to the technical side of this matter. Accordingly I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for Constantia at all.

I just want to confirm that it is not the aim to give the Registrar an absolute carte blanche so that he can simply decide that someone conducting an undertaking of this nature is engaged in an undesirable practice or an undesirable undertaking. The aim is to bring this matter under control. The control lies in the fact that when it is brought to his attention, the Registrar has to bring the matter to the Minister’s attention. The Minister cannot take a decision before the Registrar has submitted the findings of the Advisory Committee to him. In that respect I believe that it is absolutely in the interests of the industry that things be done in this way. Therefore I cannot understand the hon. member’s objection.

Finally, I want to point out that the Bill concerns a variety of subjects. In this legislation we are simply confirming the request received from the various technical committees in connection with this matter. I do not think that anyone should try to read anything sinister into this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is now before us has come through the Other Place. There was a considerable amount of discussion with the hon. the Minister by members of our party in the Other Place. A number of amendments were moved, which, after discussion with the hon. the Minister, were subsequently withdrawn. I believe that indicates that there was a considerable amount of goodwill and good feeling with regard to the implications of the Bill.

One of the most important clauses, to which an amendment was moved by the hon. Senator Bozas—an amendment which was also withdrawn—is clause 12, which deals with group insurance schemes. One of the points which arose in discussion after the withdrawal of the amendment was whether it would not be possible to make provision for an option to be given to people who are involved in this sort of group insurance schemes. The possibility was discussed about whether by payment of an additional premium they might not be able to take out more insurance or all risk cover. I think the hon. the Minister undertook to look into the matter. Therefore, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, he may possibly be able to tell us whether any progress has been made or whether this is a matter which is still being considered.

There are various other clauses. However, I believe the point made by the hon. member for Constantia refers to the flexibility which is now being built into the system, particularly in relation to the requirements for liquid assets. Then, in regard to clause 30, there was a considerable amount of discussion about whether the Minister should have the right to be able to increase liquid assets to the extent envisaged in the clause. However, the undertaking was given by the hon. the Minister that this would be done with the utmost circumspection. That undertaking was given, of course, for very obvious reasons. A sudden increase of this nature, which would have the effect of restricting credit, would seriously prejudice small businesses in particular. The assurance given by the hon. the Minister—an assurance which we accepted—was that this was normally done only in about 0,5% of cases at a time. He said he had certainly no intention to undertake any sudden action which might seriously prejudice businesses in this way.

I believe that the clause which I particularly welcome, is the clause in terms of which building societies are allowed to work their way out of one of the problems which have arisen as a result of the collapse of the bank in land bid. A couple of years ago this was the going cry in South Africa. Everybody banked in land. Then, of course, the tremendous problem arose with Glen Anil and other companies, and building societies found themselves in very serious problems. The fact that they can now build and develop properties in that way will cover the investments they have made. I welcome this measure wholeheartedly indeed. I believe it is a means through which the interests of members of the building societies can be safeguarded. It also gives them an opportunity of recouping what has undoubtedly been a very, very serious blow to a considerable section of the financial community in South Africa. I can just mention in passing that the ability of Black members to be able to negotiate loans for the development of properties in Black urban areas on registered, surveyed sites is something we welcome very much indeed. Therefore, we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill. We are pleased with it and think it is a step forward. Again, the flexibility it provides the hon. the Minister with is something that we welcome.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill deals with various institutions including the insurance industry. Some of the changes are being made as a result of recommendations of the commission of inquiry. We welcome the extra protection in respect of persons who are doing, or who are going to do, military service. We also welcome the general concessions given to some of the institutions.

In regard to the amendment whereby building societies can build on vacant plots bought on account of the default of buyers, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a few questions. I can understand that the building societies would want this amendment because it may be easier to sell a newly built house than to sell a vacant plot. If the building societies are therefore going to go into further competition with home builders, we should like to be assured that the major home builders are also being consulted. I think that the home builders do have an association, and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether his department consults with the home builders association, or alternatively, if they do not have an association, I think SAPOA would be the body that would have to be consulted, the reasons being that the home builders are going through a very difficult time and that this amendment will increase the competition. The building societies are in a far better position to weather the bad times than the home builders are. My appeal is only for consultation with the major home builders.

We welcome the fact that the pension funds will be allowed to give loans in the Black townships. This means that pension funds can play a role in the vital sphere of creating more housing for Blacks in South Africa. This will also help more people to obtain a stake in the country, an aspect which is very vital. Time is short, so I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that we find this Bill acceptable and shall not oppose it.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not spend much time on this matter. I just want to say that I believe that we all are unanimous that this Bill is a well-considered piece of legislation covering a wide field.

In reply to the speech by the hon. member for Walmer, I just want to say that if problems are really being experienced by the house builders building speculation houses, it has always been my experience that they can certainly obtain work by way of agreements with building societies. I do not believe that this legislation as such will cause the builders to lose their work.

But the builders have their own land.

Since there are many open plots in our urban areas which are very costly for the local authorities because there are unutilized services, this legislation can contribute towards bringing about a greater degree of housing density in developing areas so that the services can be better utilized. Personally I have no fault to find with this legislation. I should like to have made a few more comments, but I think that most of them have in any event been covered by other hon. members. I take great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a few words to the hon. the Minister in this Second Reading stage and to raise with him one or two queries in connection with the provisions of clause 9 of the Bill, a clause which seeks to insert a new section 23B in the Insurance Act As my hon. colleague mentioned, the essence of the proposed insertion is to the effect that “the Registrar may by notice in the Gazette declare a specified practice or method of conducting business an ‘irregular or undesirable practice’”.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before proceedings were suspended I was saying the essence of the proposed insertion is to the effect that the Registrar may by notice in the Gazette ban or specify a specific practice or method of doing business as an undesirable or irregular practice. Once such notice has been given in the Gazette it would apply to registered insurers and also, as I understand it, to brokers who effect, maintain or service policies. In certain circumstances, as are set out in the Bill, the registrar is obliged to consult the insurance advisory committee, but not in all circumstances. In the Bill no obligation is placed on the registrar to be guided or to be bound by the views expressed by that advisory committee. Upon notice being given in the Gazette, the companies concerned are given 21 days to cease employing the practice or procedure designated as being undesirable or irregular. On the face of it, the provision confers on the Registrar exceedingly wide and, I think, far-reaching powers whose implementation could have serious effects and consequences for the members of the insurance industry, be they underwriters or brokers.

The doubts I harbour are exacerbated by the fact that nowhere in the Bill, or in the Second Reading speech by the Minister, is there any clue to indicate what is meant or contemplated by the words “irregular or undesirable practice” and “undesirable method of conducting business” contained in the Bill. Which practices are to be the targets of the registrar’s decisions and subsequent public notification?

It is not clear to me, and I am sure the same applies to the industry itself, what area of marketing or current practice is, or may in the future come, under scrutiny. As the hon. the Minister mentioned, insurance is a growing industry in which competition for business is very keen. The future leaders in the field of insurance are not necessarily those who are today the largest organizations, or even the longest established organizations, but rather those who, in these times of expansion and sharp competition within the insurance industry, provide the best rates, the most comprehensive cover and the most efficient service. In order to provide these benefits very often a high degree of innovation is required.

I want to give one example of such innovative practice. In recent years organizations have been able to provide what is termed “cradle to the grave cover”. By special arrangement goods, and their components, can be covered from the moment they leave the supplier in the form of raw materials, right through the manufacturing process, including the subsequent shipping of the goods, warehousing, distribution of the end product to the marketing networks, right up to the time the goods find themselves in the hands of the consumer. Normally, to cover goods against all risks over this long period and through the several stages of manufacture, transportation, warehousing and sale could require up to five or six insurance policies, each one of them different, carrying various premiums and involving several insurers and not a few insured parties. Today, as a result of the imaginative approach of some organizations in the insurance field, this whole process can be covered under one all-embracing policy which closes all the gaps and grants a greater cover while at the same time requiring a premium far lower than the sum of the premiums of all the other policies which would be required under the old-style arrangement I am just quoting this as an example. The point I am trying to make is that this is an innovative practice which is clearly within the scope of the law and which, I believe, bestows benefits of a very real nature on the market itself.

In terms of the amendment before us, it becomes possible, if not likely, following complaints received from registered insurers who have perhaps not been as innovative as others, who may have stuck to the old procedures, whose conventional re-insurance arrangements are inadequate and who consequently are losing large slices of premium income as a result of, for instance, this new package, for the registrar to close down this new operation if he thinks that such a practice might be irregular or wrong. I want the hon. the Minister to understand that I am not alleging that the registrar would in the specific case I have mentioned act in this manner at all. It is my view, however, that to confer a power of tins sort without defining or circumscribing the scope or ambit of authority of the registrar is to create uncertainty in the insurance industry and to put a brake on new ideas and on progressive and innovative business practices. I do not think it can be good legislation if it allows for the situation that a method of marketing which in every respect meets the requirements of the law, can be summarily banned merely because it is considered irregular or undesirable by an albeit objective and very senior Government official. I think it is an unenviable power to place in the hands of any person.

If the hon. the Minister has in mind—this is where we are getting to the point—that which he wishes to prevent, I believe the hon. the Minister’s intention should be reflected in the legislation before us today. You see, Sir, organizations may invest many thousands of rand in researching, in negotiating and, finally, in marketing new insurance packages, incorporating all sorts of concepts, be it concepts of risk management or new concepts of re-insurance and of differing types of cover, only to find that, once they have cornered a percentage of the market, they are given 21 days to cease employing such methods or conducting such business.

I believe that that is hardly fair and certainly not conducive to an on-going modernization of the industry itself. It is a charter to stand still, to try nothing new. I am aware that similar measures exist in the Banking Institutions Act or in the Banks Act, and I am also aware that these provisions have been very sparingly used. I think I should make it clear that it is not that I fear that the registrar or the hon. the Minister will act unreasonably or without regard to the circumstances. What I fear, however, is that the vagueness of the provision itself will stultify and not stimulate the industry; not that procedural provisions are even set out in the amending Bill, since there are in fact no procedural provisions at all. There seems to be, for instance, no right—whether there is a practice or not, is another question—contained in the Bill as such for persons or companies affected to make representation or even to answer allegations or complaints if any are lodged. In terms of the Bill an absolute decision can be made without hearing the other side of any particular case.

The insurer or the person concerned has 21 days from the date of the gazetting to rectify what was declared undesirable. Most insurers have a minimum of 30 days’ notice on cancellation of policy contracts. In many instances the 30 days’ notice extends to 90 days’ notice for some contracts. I believe that it must be realized that a notice contemplated in this clause could conceivably precipitate the cancellation of contracts. I would not put it stronger than that, but it could conceivably precipitate the cancellation of contracts and even the dismembering of a whole marketing structure. Surely 21 days’ notice leaves too short a time to expect an organization to wind down an operation which may well have cost thousands to mount and which may have been standing several years.

I should have like to have drafted a comprehensive amendment to this clause, but I must confess to the hon. the Minister that even in consultation with the hon. member for Constantia I found it most difficult I found it most difficult to do so constructively while not being aware of the hon. the Minister’s specific intentions in respect of this clause. As far as malpractices and irregularities are concerned, I think the hon. the Minister will find that we have common cause in our attitude. If such malpractices and irregularities exist, they must be eliminated. The scope of what it is intended to debar, however, should be defined for all to see.

I looked at the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Long-term Insurance Industry and I must admit that I was not able to obtain much enlightenment from it as to its recommendation on page 32, because I find that that recommendation is almost as vague as the clause we are now discussing.

I think that powers of this type should only be exercised after proper and full procedures have been undergone, incorporating the time-honoured audi alteram partem rule which ought to be fully utilized before a notice of this nature is published in the Gazette. I sincerely hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will give some consideration to the points I have raised and either explain the proposed addition to the Act and, if possible, the background to those additions, or reconsider the advisability of proceeding with this clause at all.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members on both sides of the House once again for their positive approach to a measure. The measure at present under discussion is, as I said initially, largely of a technical nature. It results from experience that we gain from year to year in the administration of the legislation.

In the main the hon. member for Constantia agreed with us on the various clauses. He had a reservation with regard to clause 9, however. Indeed, it is this clause which the hon. member for Sandton has just enlarged on and I will discuss it in a moment.

I was glad that the hon. member for Constantia was able to support clause 12, because I regard it as important especially in view of the fact that we are engaged in a new scheme for the insurance of national servicemen in co-operation with the Department of Defence and the industry itself. Outstanding progress has been made and an agreement will be entered into shortly in terms of which a valuable facility will be made available.

†I think we might as well deal with clause 9, with the question of making some provision for being able to deal with what has been called undesirable or perhaps irregular practices. I want to say what I really think has happened in this regard. I agree that the commission to which the hon. member referred has perhaps not spelt this out in all detail and clarity. However, I think its intention is clear. The Advisory Committee on Long-term Insurance which has been set up after the commission reported, indeed in terms of one of the recommendations of the commission, has to my mind been fulfilling an extremely important function in the short time of its existence. I think the feeling of our party, the Registrar and the insurance industry, is that this is a body that is extremely useful, even in the short time since it has been appointed. This body also supports the fact that there is a need for this type of thing. As the hon. member has said, we are dealing with the question of the Registrar taking certain actions after he has learnt the views of the Advisory Committee. That requires the approval of the Minister. The hon. member is quite right in saying that we have not specified what precisely is an undesirable or irregular action. It is very difficult to do so. The hon. member will know that if one specified four irregular actions, there might be a fifth or sixth action with which people may continue. I must repeat what I said earlier in my introductory speech, and that is that we are not saying that this industry is fraught with undesirable activities. Very far from it; it is a very fine industry. However, it is felt very strongly in important sections of the industry itself—I do not want to say it is felt by every insurer—that it is time that a provision very much along the lines of that contained in the Bank Act should be incorporated in the relevant Act.

Except that the Banks Act specifies it.

One feels one’s way. I think what will happen is that experience will be gained by the industry itself—and this is very important—concerning the sort of activities that might eventuate here and there and which are regarded as being undesirable. While I am Minister of Finance I certainly do not intend to go and look around and to say to people what I regard as an undesirable thing to do. I am not competent to do it. However, I think that if it comes from the industry it ought to be very carefully considered. If after careful investigation and consultation with the industry and the formal advisory committee, which consists of leading members of the industry, it is felt that this is something which could best be done without, I think one ought to have provisions to deal with it. I hope the hon. member will agree that we ought to be given an opportunity to test this out. I think it will happen in very few instances, but it would be a good thing to create a mechanism to do away with something which people who really know, generally agree is something which could best be done without. To my mind that is all that is in the Registrar’s mind.

The period of 21 days is possibly a little short. Again it is very much in line with provisions pertaining to banks, provisions which are very seldom used. Yet I wonder whether a period of 21 days is all that short in the case of an insurer who is being told that he must not apply a practice where the industry itself feels that he ought not to continue with that practice.

I wonder whether a period of 21 days is all that short if the practice is really something which should not be engaged in. It is true that there is the insurer, but there is also the insured, and members of the public, and it could well be that an activity of that kind is very much to the disadvantage of other parties, or the insured, in which case we would probably agree that the sooner those indulging in the practice ceased or desisted, the better. In the case of saying any harm done must be rectified—that is the second leg— again a period of 21 days is provided for. In that case, however, the Registrar does have the discretion to lengthen the period. That is deliberately provided for, because perhaps in that case a period of 21 days is a little on the short side. We do not really know, but the Registrar would be quite prepared, if any practical instances should arise, to allow what would be regarded as a very adequate period of time. I think he would be largely influenced by the advice the industry itself gave him through the advisory committee. Therefore I am not suggesting to the hon. member that he does not have a valid point. It is difficult to know. One wants to be reasonable, but if he feels strongly about this point and wishes to proceed with his amendment, he is fully entitled to do so, and we can have another look at the matter in the Committee Stage. However, I am in difficulty in trying to prescribe exactly what we have in mind and in putting it in words. I am afraid that we might then not be covering something which might arise, something we do not really know about. That is all we have in mind. I do not think this is a provision that will be used. If one looks at the experience of banks, for example, one realizes that years might go by without there being a single case. Then something which is thoroughly undesirable might crop up. At least one would then have a way of dealing with it I think that is probably all I can say at the moment with regard to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, since once is, in fact, dealing here with what another authoritative party calls a black cat in a dark alley and when one does not know whether the cat is there, on the face of it would be very difficult to draft an amendment Could we not therefore be given time to reflect on this matter, perhaps in consultation with the hon. the Minister and his department, to see whether the exact objectives of clause 9 cannot be discussed with a view to drafting an amendment which would be more in line with section 23A of the principal Act which actually describes an undesirable practice? Then we could perhaps introduce a new section 23B more along those lines, rather than having the present provision which is like that black cat in the dark room.

I have no objection to that procedure being adopted in the spirit of that delightful analogy. We have the Registrar’s specialist in insurance, one might say, here at the moment, and perhaps the hon. member and the hon. member for Sandton might even have the opportunity of a little chat with him this afternoon. I have no objection at all to that, and if the hon. member would care to proceed with an amendment, he is perfectly entitled to do so.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he would deal with the question of the procedure—to which I have referred—of the audi alteram partem rule being applied prior to a notice being gazetted? In other words, I am referring to an opportunity being given to answer complaints prior to a notice being gazetted.

I know this is not spelt out in the Bill in any detail; that is quite right Obviously, however, if an action were brought to the Registrar’s notice, an action which was felt to be undesirable, let us say, there is no doubt whatsoever that the first thing that he would do would be to discuss the matter with the party concerned. Few officials do more consultations, year in and year out, than the Registrar of Financial Institutions. He spends a tremendous amount of time on it. Therefore there is no question about it that the first thing he would do would be to discuss the matter with the party concerned. He would get the persons’ or the companies, clear exposition of exactly what they are doing and why and how they were doing it. Then he would obviously proceed, if he feels he must, in terms of what is laid down. Perhaps that is something the hon. member might, at the same time, like to discuss with the Registrar’s representative.

The hon. member for Walmer referred to the building societies. The provision that will be made in the Building Societies Act, when this legislation is accepted, will deal with the situation where vacant land is bought back because of arrears. The power is being granted for a building society or its property development company to build on that vacant land. This is simply being done because it is found that if land remains vacant it simply cannot be disposed of. The hon. member was concerned about whether this could, in some way perhaps, operate to the disadvantage of the home builder. I do not think so, because the people who would do the building would, in fact, be the home builders themselves.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he realizes that some of the very big public companies who are home builders also own their own land and therefore build on their own land?

This is, of course, strictly confined to the building society which has bought back that land and has now been given the opportunity to make it more attractive to a potential buyer.

They would be in competition with the home builders.

I wonder if that is so. What is the situation at the moment? Nobody is building on such land at present, so whoever builds there in the future will be doing something that cannot happen today. A good deal of the building, at any rate, will be done by the home builder in any case. There is no question about that I think that by and large they ought to be in a better position, even if some other group were to do some of the building. I am quite sure that the greater part of that building would be done precisely by the people whom that hon. member regards as the home builders. That is how I see it, and I think that that is probably correct. That issue has therefore been disposed of to that extent.

The hon. member for Mooi River quite correctly referred to the very valuable debate that took place in the Other Place in this respect I thank him for his constructive reference to it. The hon. Senator Bozas did raise a point in regard to clause 12 which seeks to amend section 38 and 38A. What we overlooked last year when we amended section 38, was that we should then have said that this excluded the normal group life policy which is sui generis, something on its own. It is really a shorter term policy, and not a long-term policy like the normal life policy. No reserves are built up by that kind of business. One can almost say that in that business one lives from hand to mouth. Once one has a group life policy between an insurance company, an insurer, and the insured, the Government cannot ex post facto say that the insurer no longer has the right to amend that policy or even cancel it, something which happens in many cases with these group life policies. In many cases the insurer can, in fact, either amend it—it is written into the policy—or even cancel it. The question in this regard was: Why let the insurer out to that extent, if one may put it in those terms, especially where the persons being covered might be people on active service? It is simply a question of a contract, and one cannot interfere in that sense. What do we therefore wish to do? We are, in fact, taking a whole new look at the situation, as I said a moment ago, and the Registrar has reached the very final stages of putting forward a new scheme of insurance for these people. It will also be available to people in the Permanent Force, and from what I have heard of it, it sounds like a very big improvement indeed. It will be compulsory, which will mean that the much larger number of people involved will allow for lower premiums. I think the hon. member will see that there is a big improvement coming. As far as the arguments of the hon. Senator Bozas are concerned, I did give the assurance that I would have another look at this matter and discuss it with the Registrar’s office, something I have done.

I should just like to deal with that point briefly because I still have a technical difficulty about it. The hon. Senator Bozas—if I may just refer to this—moved the following amendment—

He was referring to group life policies. And then—

In other words, if a man is on active service and is a member of such a scheme, but the company cannot continue to cover him because the risk is too high in terms of his premiums, the company must be given the right to increase such a premium. Again, of course, it might mean an arbitrary interference with the contract However, the way I would react to that would be to say—and I put this to the hon. Senator Bozas—that as I understand it he has in mind that sections 38 and 38A of the principal Act must apply to group life policies, except that the premium may be increased to cover the war risk, as we call it.

Then I went on to say that I regretted the fact that this amendment could not be accepted since it was necessary—apart from the necessity to alter premiums—to exclude group policies from sections 38 and 38A for certain practical reasons. One of these reasons is that section 38(5) provides that an insurer who relies on the provisions of section 38(3), and in doing so, does not meet a claim in respect of the war risk, which may be excluded—that is to say excluding service outside the Republic and service anywhere on an aircraft—shall refund the premiums paid to the member concerned. This treatment is obviously not possible in respect of group policies for which no reserves, by the very nature of the business, are accumulated, as in the case of life insurance as such. The second point is that section 38A contains in effect a similar provision, namely in subsection (1), which compels insurers to pay out, in cases where the military risk is excluded, an amount at least equal to the premiums paid. Also this provision militates against the concept of group life policies, for which no reserves are accumulated, and therefore cannot be given effect to.

The position at the moment is that if this amendment to clause 12 were accepted, it would in fact leave the insurer, the company—in the case of a group policy—free either to include or exclude such a risk We are not saying to them they may not do it, nor are we saying to them they must not do it, because we feel we cannot do so by virtue of the very nature of the policy. However, we are saying to them that if they see their way clear to doing so, they are free to do it. Though it is not the ideal, we are channelling all our energies into getting a new type of policy going which will, in fact, be a type of group life policy—but a very much better one—in which we make provision for compulsory insurance on terms which are clear to everybody before the contract is signed, and the Government will go so far as to be the reinsurer.

Will that cover all services?

Yes. The Government will be the reinsurer, as well, something which does not happen in any of the other cases. That, in turn, means that the premium will be even lower. I thank the hon. member for raising the point. I hope that he will accept that we are all on the way to something useful.

*Furthermore I also want to thank the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke and the hon. member for Florida for their contributions. I believe that their view is correct, viz. that the provisions of this measure amount to improvements. That is how we see it. I hope that we shall be able to continue in this way, that we shall be able to determine by way of experiments how these things work out in practice and, if there are any problems, I shall perhaps request the indulgence of hon. members next year to effect a few amendments to the legislation once again.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we are of the opinion that this report should not be adopted by the House without a few remarks.

For the sake of convenience I shall commence with the first paragraph of the report. In that paragraph it is pointed out that expenditure amounting to approximately R94 million, at first specified as unauthorized, was subsequently granted the necessary approval and need no longer be regarded as unauthorized. What was involved were mainly the business arrangements of Armscor and the necessary loans raised by the department to facilitate the efficient management of the affairs of Armscor. Although there were instances of unauthorized expenditure having been incurred theoretically and temporarily, it soon became clear to all members of the Select Committee that such expenditure had been incurred with sincere intentions and, in any event, under the strictest measure of financial control possible in view of all the existing circumstances. Consequently it was clear to us, that this expenditure should be approved and also that it was desirable that steps be taken so as to ensure that no need would arise in future to operate outside the rules for the purpose of having the activities of Armscor finalized. So it is with a feeling of satisfaction that we notice that steps are being taken in other legislation which is before this House at present to strengthen the capital structure of Armscor. This will probably obviate the need to operate outside the rules. I do not think that it is necessary to say anything more in this regard.

In the second paragraph certain amounts are listed which do have to be regarded as unauthorized in terms of the regulations. The Committee recommends, however, that that expenditure be authorized by this House. As regards the amounts concerned, we shall be pleased to support the recommendations of the committee. The largest portion of the amount of R4,7 million is made up of expenditure incurred in the process of recruiting national servicemen for service in the Permanent Force. Representatives of the Defence Force and the department advanced more than reasons to the Committee as to why it was desirable and advantageous to do so. If it was bona fide and in the national interest and consequently justified. The amount of R532 000 which is also mentioned in this paragraph represents expenditure which became necessary for technical reasons. Everything was bona fide and consequently we take no exception to the expenditure having been incurred.

I should now like to deal with paragraph 3 for the sake of convenience. Later, however, I shall revert to paragraph 2 to move an amendment. In paragraph 3 we come to the matters held over from the previous year, and these matters relate to the former Department of Information.

†Although small in money terms, we have here a rather seamy end of the Information scandal. I think hon. members on both sides of the House are aware of these facts and I do not think there is any difference of view between us about any of them. That is why the committee unanimously declined to authorize this expenditure. Broadly speaking, the amount of R11 000 odd arose from an occasion where Mr. Chris van Rensburg, who was the subject of debate in this House last year and for whom no admiration was expressed from any quarter in the House, undertook to deliver 8 000 copies of a certain publication to the former Department of Information. He was late in his delivery, found that his costs had escalated and approached the department with the story that he could afford to produce only 5 500 copies for the price he had originally quoted for 8 000 copies. Contrary to all kinds of established practice and all regulations, the department, under Dr. Rhoodie, allowed him to deliver 5 500 copies. The amount which was reported as unauthorized by the Auditor-General and which is now before the House, is the calculated amount representing the additional copies had they been delivered. The action on the part of the former Department of Information in condoning the short delivery of 2 500 copies is entirely to be deplored. There was no doubt about this in the Committee and I do not think there will be any doubt about this in the House.

The item of R30 000 which appears in paragraph 3 of the report is even more reprehensible. This involves the same Mr. Chris van Rensburg in respect of a publication of which details are contained in the report He handled the publication, claimed that his costs had exceeded his expected revenue by R29 000 odd plus and then approached the department openly in writing for reimbursement of these costs. This was turned down by Dr. Rhoodie personally on the grounds, inter alia, that the regulations did not permit him to do anything about it. It was subsequently discovered, however, that Mr. Van Rensburg had been paid the sum of R30 000 in cash out of secret funds prior to Dr. Rhoodie endorsing the file to the effect that no payment could be made. This was deplorable conduct on the part of Dr. Rhoodie. But this is no news to the House. However, it is worthwhile and necessary to stress that the danger is always present when there are secret funds that are not fully subject to audit that those funds may be used to accomplish something which could never be attempted with ordinary State moneys that is subject to the disciplines which is attached to such moneys. Although the amount here is small in relation to the many tens of millions that the Information scandal has cost us, the nature of the operation, the nature of what took place is such that we should all stand thoroughly warned for the future against the existence of secret funds that are not subject to audit.

There is another matter that the hon. member for Yeoville raised in the form of an amendment on page xxxiv of the report which I want to raise again here this afternoon.

*This is a serious matter, and it will come as no surprise to hon. members that we felt that the Select Committee was the appropriate forum for the discussion of the apparent fact that while the former Department of Information was running riot under its former head, it happened year after year that funds were transferred from other Government departments for the use of the former Department of Information contrary to the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act. Apart from all other aspects of the Information debacle it is of the utmost importance to us that it should be ascertained exactly in what way the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act, as well as the regulations of Parliament itself, were circumvented in order to make that money available to the Department of Information.

The hon. member for Yeoville moved a detailed amendment in this regard in the Select Committee, and I have already given hon. members the reference in case they want to look at it. It states the matter more fully than the amendment I intend moving, but to save the time of this House I have shortened his amendment. The amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville mentions the certificate furnished by the Minister of Defence under the Defence Special Account Act and shows, on the basis of the figures, that it is to be assumed that the amount of R17 million was transferred contrary to the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act during the 1977-’78 financial year.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he is dealing with the first or the second report.

I am dealing with the first report in the sense that it is before the House now, and it is the report to which I am going to move an amendment, but I have been informed that the rules of the House permit us of mentioning matters dealt with in the second report as well.

There is nothing in the first report in any event which could give rise to a meaningful discussion. Consequently it is in order for the hon. member for Parktown to refer to the second report as well.

Thank you, Sir. In any event, I have concluded the remarks I wanted to make, and I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, the matter raised by the hon. member for Parktown, is a very delicate one. It has already been replied to at length in this House in the various debates on the former Department of Information. The majority of the members of the Select Committee decided not to accept the amendment by the hon. member for Yeoville.

We are dealing here with the Select Committee on Public Accounts and I want to argue with the hon. member on the procedure of the Committee. It should be borne in mind that the Select Committee investigates public accounts. There is no evidence before the Select Committee that the amount of R17 million was transferred from some public account to the former Department of Information. However, it is very clear that there was in fact a transfer of funds from an account to another account. Moreover the hon. the Minister of Defence has already replied to this in full.

Up to now the Select Committee has been dealing with public accounts and not with secret accounts. If the Minister of Defence or any other Minister hands a certificate to the Auditor-General to the effect that the funds were properly spent, it must be accepted that those funds were in fact spent in that way. I concede that this aspect is perhaps very technical, but then we must be technical throughout. We must then say to one another that this is not the place where this debate should take place; this debate should then take place in another place.

Where?

I cannot say where. That I cannot say. However, the fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Groote Schuur is a lawyer.

I am only asking.

I had assumed that the hon. member knew something about these matters, but it now seems to me as if he knows rather little about them. Consequently I shall have to explain them to him.

The hon. member will concede my point that in practice, in terms of the rules under which the Select Committee performs its functions, it does not have the authority—in fact, the Auditor-General does not have that authority either—to report on secret funds in any way. We simply do not have that authority. We as the Select Committee can act only on the basis of what the Auditor-General reports to Parliament. The Select Committee has no other powers.

We settled that matter long ago.

Yes, we settled this matter last year. On that basis the majority of the members of the Select Committee negatived the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. The validity or otherwise of the transfer of R17 million was fundamentally not an issue for the Select Committee. It was not a matter that the Select Committee could investigate. It fell outside its powers. For that reason the Select Committee took the decision that is before the House at present. For that reason, too, I want to say with all due respect that I think that the amendment moved here by the hon. member today, is out of order. The hon. member spoke of secret funds. He may be in order as far as the report per se is concerned, but the Select Committee decided that it could not take decisions on secret funds. That is why the Select Committee took the decision it did.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question. If he will refer to page viii, the first page of the First Report, and specifically to paragraph 3(b) at the bottom of that page, he will see that the Select Committee dealt with secret funds of R30 000. That was the Van Rensburg affair. How does he reconcile that with his present argument?

Mr. Speaker, the reply to that question is very simple. The Auditor-General reported to the Select Committee and to Parliament that he had ascertained that R30 000 had been taken out of the secret account and spent in public. Rhoodie took R30 000 out of the secret fund and spent it in public. For that reason the Auditor-General picked it up and had to report on the matter. After all, there was no longer a secret fund. We have argued before whether the Auditor-General was entitled to report anything about the trips overseas, etc., which were allegedly financed from secret funds. The fact of the matter is that after the money had been taken out of the secret fund, something was done with it in public. That is why the Auditor-General had every right to report on it. He received the information that this money had been taken out of the secret fund, transferred to the public account, if I may put it that way, and had been spent irregularly. For that reason, and for no other reason, the Auditor-General could report on it Hon. members ought to understand this.

I do not believe we should try to make any political capital out of this matter. With regard to the R30 000 transferred by Chris van Rensburg from the secret funds, I indicated in my report that I regarded this as irregular. The Select Committee decided unanimously that we could not ask this House to authorize it. Consequently I do not believe there need be a fight between us in regard to this matter. However, we must rectify the situation. In respect of every aspect with which hon. members are having difficulties in so far as this matter is concerned, there is an aspect which can be used as a counter argument. However, this is not the occasion to debate this matter. As far as I am concerned the amendment of the hon. member for Parktown is in conflict with the spirit in which the Select Committee dealt with the whole matter. This is not the place to debate this matter.

As far as I am concerned, hon. members can debate this matter during the discussion of the Vote of the Minister of Defence or on other occasions, but not in the Select Committee on Public Accounts, because this Select Committee deals only with public accounts. Of course, this will be different if the Auditor-General can also audit secret accounts in future. However, the Select Committee may only report to Parliament on the report of the Auditor-General, and nothing else.

Order! As I understand the matter, an amendment was moved in the Select Committee concerning the circumstances surrounding the R17 million. It was considered by the Select Committee and was negatived. The fact that it was considered by the Select Committee, however, does not necessarily, in my opinion, make it relevant here. What is relevant here is the first report of the Committee. That is what is before the House at the moment I think the second report is also relevant because it deals with exactly the same matters as the first report. It furnishes the facts with regard to the whole matter. I am therefore permitting the second report to be discussed here together with the first report, although only the first report is being considered by this House and although only the first report may be voted on. However, this amendment does not relate to the first report and consequently I am unable to accept it as it is not relevant to the report.

Mr. Speaker, I have certainly not come to the House today with the thought that I would have to debate this Select Committee report Certainly I feel that the debate that took place within the Select Committee itself was a reasonable full one and that all these matters were reasonably well covered there. It was my intention to devote my speech debating the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Parktown, but in view of your ruling, Sir, I think what has been said on this subject is perhaps sufficient, and I therefore leave the matter as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is customary this Bill deals with miscellaneous matters affecting the State Revenue Fund and the Railways and Harbour Fund. Since the various clauses are explained in the explanatory memorandum which hon. members already have before them, I do not deem it necessary to explain all the clauses in detail. If hon. members want more information on a clause, the Minister concerned or I will gladly furnish further particulars.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has rightly said, we have a White Paper which is very helpful, and I shall begin by expressing my proper gratitude for it. The hon. the Minister is also right in implying, as I think he did, that a number of the clauses are perfectly clear and perfectly acceptable, and there is therefore no need, nor is it desirable, to make any fuss about them. Typical of those is clause 1 which, as the explanatory memorandum states, gives effect to one of the hon. the Minister’s budget proposals and, of course, we have no difficulty with that at all.

Similarly clause 2 deals with matters which we have just debated, matters flowing from the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and, as I indicated during that earlier debate, we think it is quite right that these sums of money should be authorized, charged to the proper account and thereafter made available, and we are quite happy about that.

Clause 3 of the Bill deals with the matter of loans entered into by the Administrator-General of South West Africa. It is clear that as the Territory progresses towards independence, it must establish a persona of its own as a borrower. For that to happen in the early stages there will have to be some guarantee to enable South West Africa to begin borrowing and to establish a credit rating. We have no objection to this provision, but we do express the hope that the Territory will, as soon as possible, reach a point where it does have its own credit and need not be regarded as simply a client State of our country in the economic sense. That is desirable, not merely for the obvious financial reason that South Africa would not wish to have other countries tied to her apron-strings, but also because I would guess that in the field of foreign affairs, in which I am no expert, it would be very important to establish true financial independence for South West Africa as soon as possible.

Clause 4 of the Bill empowers the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to give guarantees of up to R250 million in respect of loans granted by the Reserve Bank to the IDC in connection with CGIC cover on foreign contracts entered into by South African contractors. In welcoming this clause I ought to declare some interest in it, though not direct or personal, and say that because I do have some knowledge of these matters I am very keenly aware of the very great value of assistance given by the CGIC to the South African contracting industry. I therefore believe that it is essential that this sort of assistance be made available, and it might well be that the hon. the Minister will have to come back, in due course, with an even larger amount.

It has simply been established in post-World War II international business that Governments do make this sort of financial assistance available to their contractors and exporters to enable them to trade, and increasingly trade is going, not necessarily to the countries which offer the best goods or services at the lowest prices, but to those who can offer the best financing terms to Governments or to countries which are not in a position to pay cash for goods and services they require. Where all this may lead to in the long-term one can only speculate on, but I do not think this is the place to do that. Certainly, if we wish to protect our balance of payments by stimulating the exporting of our services even more than that of our goods, this sort of financial arrangement will have to continue. I also think that it will be necessary to be flexible and imaginative in making the rules and in carrying out this policy, because it is a keenly competitive field in which many of the largest contracts are awarded precisely on this sort of basis.

Clause 5 deals with the empowering of the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations to guarantee the loans granted for the purpose of electrification in certain Black townships. It goes without saying that we very strongly welcome anything that is done towards the improvement of the quality of life in these townships, and in particular towards the bringing of electric power to them. One’s regret that this has not happened earlier is only sharpened by the not negligible aspect of our fuel crisis which is exacerbated by the use of paraffin in the townships by people who would certainly be using electricity if it were available to them for the purposes of heating and cooking.

When each of these townships is finally electrified, there will certainly be a very substantial saving on our petroleum account, but that is essentially a detail. One has, of course, been pleading for, and working towards, the electrification of these townships for years past, and I think I must say in passing—I do not want to sound a discordant note—that it is greatly to be regretted that particularly in the case of Soweto, of which I have some knowledge, the matter has been held up for as long as it has. I very much hope that with the acceptance of this amendment it will be possible, not only for the funds to be made available, but also for the practical work to be got on with at the earliest possible moment.

Clause 6 of the Bill deals with the proper financing of the South African Inventions Development Corporation. To say that the case for capitalizing this loan is impeccable is to put it mildly, as indeed the White Paper states. When the White Paper observes that the ratio between capital and loans was allowed to rise, by February of this year, to something like 1:12, the imagination does rather boggle. Certainly nowhere in the private sector could a ratio of this kind be contemplated for a second. So I think that when the hon. the Minister replies he ought to tell us how it came to pass. Perhaps there was some very sudden expenditure that the Inventions Development Corporation had to undertake before the end of 1978, necessitating a sudden vast sum having to be loaned to it. I do not know what the circumstances are. At any rate, it is perfectly obvious that at this stage the loans will have to be capitalized if the balance sheet of that organization is to look in any way respectable.

Clause 7 is the clause to which I referred in passing during an earlier debate this afternoon, a clause dealing with the strengthening of the capital structure of Armscor. As already indicated, we had some difficulty in adopting the Select Committee report because of the fact that Armscor had found it quite impossible to conduct its business efficiently and to have proper regard to its priorities, and particularly to have proper regard to the special difficulties with which it has to deal— difficulties into which one need not go here— without making considerable payments to a number of its suppliers. There was room for some doubt as to whether these payments were, in fact, interest-free loans or whether they were pre-payments on orders placed. In certain instances it was difficult to sort out, but in the end it was all sorted out to the Treasury’s satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Select Committee. However, we welcome unreservedly the steps that are being taken here to strengthen Armscor’s capital so as to enable it to do this business in a normal way, with its own funds instead of special loans. We hope that the amount voted here is going to prove to be adequate. If it is not, more money will just have to be found somehow.

Clause 8, as the White Paper shows clearly, again has to do with the “onafhanklikwording” of South West Africa. The clause deals with the financial treatment of loans amounting to just over R5 million, which were made via the SABC by the Treasury for the erection of broadcasting facilities in South West Africa. With the establishment of an independent broadcasting corporation, these assets will be taken over. However, without any full explanation, we find that in taking over the assets, the only corresponding liability which the broadcasting corporation of South West Africa is taking over is R1,855 million of the R5 million, the other R3,2 million simply being written off, and provision for that is made in a later clause in this Bill.

I think the hon. the Minister owes the House an explanation on how this comes about. What assets were required for the R5 million originally made available? What has happened to those assets? Why is the South West African broadcasting corporation not able to assume a liability equal to the whole loan? Also, why is it that the SABC is now having to write off R3 million-odd of its own capital? There may be a good reason, but we do not know, or at least to my knowledge other hon. members of this House do not know the reason either.

Clause 9 of the Bill deals with the closing down of the National Film Board. I was not a member of the committee that investigated that matter, but to judge by everything one has heard, it is high time that the National Film Board was closed down. This clause gives effect to that decision. Will the hon. the Minister please tell us however, when he replies to the debate, whether there were any losses to the State in this connection, and if so, how they have been dealt with? We would be glad to know that.

Clauses 10, 11 and 12 provide, in terms of the recommendations of the Erasmus Commission, for the full auditing of three special secret project accounts. We welcome these provisions unreservedly and loudly. Enough has been said, in other debates, to make it unnecessary for me to traverse again all the ground covered in explaining what the dangers are of having secret funds that are unaudited. I do not think it is necessary at this juncture to explain that to any well-informed South African at all. Suffice it to say that we are delighted that these accounts are going to be audited.

Clause 13 creates a division between parliamentary office bearers. I do not have the definition of parliamentary office bearers before me, but it includes special parliamentary office holders, the Leader of the Opposition, Whips, Mr. Speaker and the President of the Senate, but, not, of course, Ministers whose remuneration is separately provided for. It has apparently been judged wise, at this stage, to have these two matters separated from each other so that the arrangements pertaining to the remuneration of members do not pertain for the remuneration of office bearers. I do not want to press this matter, but I have made some attempts to find out whether this has been debated and agreed upon. I have not, however, been able to discover whether it has. If there is a reason for it, which the House ought to know about, I should like to ask for it to be made known.

Clauses 14 and 15 refer to a rearrangement of accounting responsibilities in Government departments in terms of which the accounting officer, as he is known in our law—he is normally the head of the department—no longer has sole responsibility to report on all the accounts of his department Other senior officials in his department may be given accounting responsibilities, as I understand it, for sections of a Government department that fall under them. In so far as this provides for the more specific accountability of financial officers, I think it is a good thing in principle. I think it is a good principle of management to break down responsibility of this kind into manageable units. The only danger that one sees, certainly in private sector organizations, is that when one decentralizes too much, one sometimes creates too much independence down the line, a state of affairs which gives rise to the building up of invulnerable empires by relatively junior officials. I trust that in the application of these regulations regard will be had to that danger. However, given the present-day size of many Government departments and the magnitude of their operations, to charge one single official with the total financial responsibility for an organization of that size is probably no longer wise.

As we understand it, clause 16 merely makes proper provision for a legal opinion which has recently been given to the effect that the law, as it has always stood, has in fact meant that the hon. the Minister of Finance has had to determine an interest rate for every individual debt to the Government. It is obviously quite impractical for him to do that, and we therefore support the amendment.

I have already referred to clause 17. It is the other leg of the provision for the Broadcasting Corporation of South West Africa. It is this leg which writes off approximately R3 million of the capital of the SABC. I simply refer the hon. the Minister to the questions I put earlier.

Clause 18 refers back to clauses 10, 11 and 12 that I mentioned a moment ago, clauses dealing with the auditing of the special accounts. The operative words to which I wish to refer come at the end. The Auditor-General is to report on his audits of these accounts as follows—

We do not take issue with the principle that there has to be a limitation on the extent to which the Auditor-General can publicly report on his audit of secret funds. That must be accepted. However, as everybody knows, and for reasons that everybody knows, we are keen to have the maximum possible reporting. It should not be regarded as something which is done only to the extent permitted. It should be regarded as something which is done to the fullest possible extent, excluding only that which cannot be permitted. It may be said that this is only a shift of emphasis and can produce the same result. I concede that, but still, if it is emphasized in that way I think it reads better and expresses what I hope is now the intention, i.e. that as much information as possible should be made available to Parliament. There is an amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville who, as hon. members know, is indisposed and cannot be here. That amendment will be moved at the Committee Stage.

Clause 19 deals with the financing of the sugar industry. I think that the facts behind this are reasonably well-known, and they are disturbing. The South African sugar industry has done very well over the years. I think it is a very well-managed industry that has conducted its affairs in such a way that it has been able to make adequate profits while maintaining the sugar price, to the South African consumer, at a very low level. I think I am correct in saying that it is still amongst the lowest levels in the world, or at least that certainly was the case. That has been possible because by and large, over the years, the proceeds from exports have put the industry in the position of having been able to earn the adequate profits I have referred to, in spite of the low price of sugar here in South Africa. Whether it can continue to do so, however, depends on the forward view one takes of the international sugar market. That market is depressed at the moment. There have been some signs, I think, of improvement recently, but they are not very strong signs, and certainly the White Paper does not hold out any particular hopes. It is stated, inter alia, on page 7 of the White Paper that—

Clause 19 proposes to increase the amount to be available in State guarantees from R16 million to R50 million. I mention these sums to show that we are not playing with peanuts here. These are really quite considerable sums that can mount up very quickly. Should the international sugar market maintain its depressed condition for a further period of years it would, seemingly, become impossible to avoid a steep rise in the domestic price, and perhaps other measures will also have to be adopted to maintain the solvency of the sugar industry. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that a few remarks from him would be in order to indicate what the prospects are in this regard and what he thinks it may be desirable to do in the future.

Clause 20, which is akin to clause 10, deals with the auditing of the Secret Services Account Act. What we have before us is clearly an improvement, and we welcome it.

I think the amendments affecting the Railways and Harbours can be regarded as formal amendments.

Clause 21 provides for the transfer of the Railway and Harbour Fund surplus revenue to the Rates Equalization Fund, which we knew was going to take place, and clause 22 provides for compensation that is being paid to certain people who have suffered as a result of negligence on the part of Railway staff. I think those are all the comments we have to make during the Second Reading debate and we shall, of course, support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are indebted to the hon. member for Parktown for his basic support for this legislation, and I hope the other Opposition parties will also support the legislation.

It is very clear that this legislation should really be discussed in detail, clause by clause, during the Committee Stage. Consequently I do not want to discuss the clauses of the Bill in detail at this stage. But I do want to refer to two aspects of this Bill to indicate to hon. members that it is the sincere desire of the Government that a clean administration should be effected. Certain clauses in the Bill provide that it will now be possible for the Auditor-General to carry out a full audit of the secret accounts as well. This extension of the powers of the Auditor-General is not only aimed at ensuring the Government of the day of a certain degree of security, but also at giving this House as such greater powers as far as secret accounts are concerned, because the Auditor-General reports to the Government and to this House. Personally I am grateful that that authorization enabling the Auditor-General to do this, is being extended. In this way the office of Auditor-General is being placed in a higher category than it has been in to date.

It also places the responsibility of the Select Committee and that of the House in a different category to the one in which it has been to date. Now that it is possible for secret accounts to be dealt with there as well, we bring this entire situation of dealing with secret funds into the province of each member of the House of Assembly. Reports on the matter will in future be submitted to the House. I do not think that we as South Africans really appreciate the implications of this. We shall first have to experience it in order to appreciate it.

I want to refer at once to another problem which the hon. member for Parktown also mentioned. It concerns the problems which arose at Armscor in the sense that on the one hand one was not always certain whether one was dealing with a loan or, on the other, was not certain what the object with the financing situation was. This shows us precisely how heavily the responsibility is now going to lie on this House. It is a symptom of file problem which South Africa is experiencing. We want to ensure that we always remain in the forefront with everything. The most important factor, however, is that we must ensure that we are in the forefront to be able, whenever it is necessary, to defend South Africa effectively.

Problems have arisen, and that is why the legislation was introduced, the general legislation we now have before us. If we would display an insight into the problematical aspects of the situation and were to distinguish these aspects from the possible dangers which could arise or the problems which could crop up when we are dealing with people, in the sense that human errors may arise in this process, we shall achieve a balanced view in dealing with these matters.

On the Select Committee on Public Accounts, together with the Auditor-General, we examined the affairs of Armscor, and found that there were certain problems. However, the Select Committee had no reason to believe that the problems which had arisen, had arisen from anything but the bona fides of those involved. There were no male fides in the entire process. That is why the legislation is now before us.

We in South Africa will have to accept that we are going to be dealing with this type of situation to an increasing extent in future. This is something we cannot get away from. We cannot escape from this factual situation. That is why we are grateful that as far as these aspects are concerned, we have this legislation before this House today. Let us call it—I really would not like to say that the hon. the Minister of Finance has introduced omnibus legislation …

That is in reality what it is!

In that case I can then say, with all due respect to the hon. the Minister, that it is omnibus legislation. We must have legislation such as this. The matters it deals with were undertaken in good faith and consequently we are grateful to the hon. member for Parktown for accommodating us in this respect that he did not make it difficult for us to deal with the legislation. I believe that other hon. members on the Opposition side will do the same.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke can put his mind at rest that we shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

I think it is a Bill with far-reaching consequences and implications, I should like to deal with the clauses which almost reappoint the Auditor-General or re-instate his power over secret funds. I think this is a sad commentary on what has happened in our recent past where an attempt was made to put the control of secret funds beyond the knowledge of Parliament in the sense that only certain persons would have knowledge of such funds. They would have the care of the auditing of such funds and a certificate would then be sufficient evidence that the money has been properly disposed of.

Surely we have passed that stage now, Bill.

I am merely mentioning it because this is what has happened.

The hon. member mader made the very important point, the vitally important point that the members of Parliament, because of the extension of the power of the Auditor-General, are now going to be involved. I think this is perhaps the first time in modern constitutional history where the power of Parliament as such has taken a step forward at the expense of the power of the Executive.

I think this is a very, very important point the hon. member has made. He also said that he did not think the people of South Africa really recognize how significant it is. As a person who is very interested in constitutional history, I want to say that I think that the steps that are being taken in fact represent a reversion to what is the basic power of Parliament. The whole of Parliament turns on the voting of moneys and the control of moneys which pass from the people through the hands of Parliament to the State departments. I therefore agree with the hon. member that this is a matter which is really of the utmost importance. It is a re-enforcement of the right of Parliament to have a look at moneys voted by the House and handed in good faith to Government departments to be spent by them. The Auditor-General was excluded from this, for reasons we support. The fact that there has to be secrecy is something we have also supported in the past. It is entirely regrettable that the system that was set up did not work. From the point of view of Parliament, however, it is entirely desirable that the steps proposed in the Bill should be taken. We support it and consider it a matter of great consequence.

Sir, I have a problem with clause 18 and I should just like to raise it in passing with the hon. the Minister. Clause 18 provides that the Minister should consult with the Prime Minister and the Auditor-General. As a matter of principle, I do not think the Prime Minister should be involved in a situation like this. If possible, we intend moving an amendment to this to the effect that the matter should be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts as the representative of Parliament. I think it is undesirable that the head of the Executive should be involved in a thing like this. I think that the members of Parliament themselves might serve the purpose equally well. I have not drawn up an amendment, but the last lines of the proposed new subsection (1A) could perhaps be amended to read: the Minister may after consultation with the Auditor-General and the Select Committee on Public Accounts determine.” I do want to make the point that, as a matter of principle, the Prime Minister should be left out, because I think that his inclusion is undesirable in terms of parliamentary practice.

Clause 9 relates to the National Film Board. A Select Committee report has appeared in regard to this. The comment we should like to make in regard to this matter is that this board became a bottomless pit since there was absolutely no return at all for South Africa. The board is now being closed down. One can, of course, always be wise after the event and say that it should have happened a long time ago, but, certainly, action was taken. A report was published and this action is as a result of that report.

I should like to turn to clause 19 which deals with loans made to the S.A. Sugar Association. For the hon. the Minister and myself, as representatives of Natal, the Sugar Association and anything to do with sugar is of the utmost concern. I want to say that I find it very disturbing indeed that for the second time now the Sugar Association has to borrow money to keep sugar farmers afloat. The wisecrack is heard from people in Natal that the sugar farmer is having a hard time of it because he is down to his third last aeroplane. In Natal the sugar farmer has been the absolute byword for wealth and good living.

Not in Mooi River.

It is too cold in Mooi River. The farmers of Mooi River are the poor farmers, because sugar cane does not grow there. The position is, however, very serious indeed. The situation at this moment is that the world price for sugar is approximately £100 per ton. It was £96 per ton the last time I looked. The costs in South Africa, however, amount to approximately £150 per ton. There is therefore a considerable gap. Our sugar market depends on export. A very significant technological change taking place in Europe, where the growing of sugar beet is being undertaken on a very considerable scale indeed, has resulted in Europe becoming a net exporter of sugar, whereas before it was one of the major markets to which we exported our sugar. So what we are really doing here is nothing more than gambling on the possibility that the world price of sugar is going to exceed our local price.

The hon. the Minister is guaranteeing— he is not lending the money—a loan made by the Sugar Association on behalf of sugar farmers, and that money will be used to cover the production costs of sugar farming. I think it is a gamble, but I do not think there is any way we can avoid it. In the past, when the hon. the Minister was Minister of Economic Affairs, sugar farmers actually had to suffer a cut in their price. The local realized price was cut in order to keep the sugar price on the local market at what was regarded, at that time, as being a reasonable level. Partly as a result of that the Sugar Association found itself in the position of having had to borrow R16 million, a figure which has been mentioned here, to keep the industry going. It happened that there was an upswing in the market and that the industry built up in a very substantial surplus, actually in excess of R100 million, which was put into the Stabilization Fund. This has been so depleted, however, that it is now necessary to borrow R50 million. The hon. the Minister obviously cannot speculate on market trends because nobody knows what world market trends are going to be. If Europe has a really bad sugar beet crop, or if there is a cyclone in Cuba, or something like that, the market tends to shift However, I think the sugar industry in this country is now facing the fact that sugar is in permanent over-production throughout the world. The only thing that is really going to help us is if sugar can become a source of fuel or something like that in which case, of course, all our sugar shares will shoot sky high again, and may that day soon come.

Buy another aeroplane.

Yes, the sugar farmers—by the way, I am not one—will then be able to buy another aeroplane. The industry, let me say, is already suffering as a result of drought conditions. The hon. the Minister knows very well that in the sugar belt areas north of Durban there are severe drought conditions. Drought conditions, of course, bring about a depressed situation in the industry, so the guaranteeing of this money is only a temporary palliative, but I know that because there is a very good relationship between the sugar industry and the Government the hon. the Minister will obviously keep this continually in mind. However, I want to draw his attention to the fact that I do not think that this is in any way a solution. It is something we are going to have to keep a very wary eye on in the future. With those words we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill contains many facets and ranges so wide that one can almost refer to it as a conglomerate Bill. I should like to say that we are very grateful for the explanatory memorandum we received from the department because it makes this Bill far easier for all of us to absorb. That is also why the discussion in the House is so much shorter today.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the question of the losses of the Film Board. At the time the Select Committee went into the question of the losses, on 3 April 1979, we had some indication of what the potential loss would be. At that point in time—in this regard I want to refer to page 91 of the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts—one of the senior officials of the Treasury indicated to us that the assets, including the immovable property, which is a major asset, would be approximately R5 million. He also indicated to us that the liabilities would also be in the vicinity of R5 million. So he thought that if one derived the maximum potential from one’s immovable property, obviously the losses would be cancelled out by the income from the assets. As a matter of interest, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the immovable property of the Film Board is going to be utilized by another Government department or whether he is going to sell it on the open market. I presume that if he allocates this, at approximately R5 million, to another Government department, the assets and liabilities should balance out.

The provision whereby the Administrator-General may raise loans for South West Africa is of great importance to the future growth of the Territory. The consortium of banks will raise the loans and they will be guaranteed by the South African Government. South Africa has obligations and responsibilities in regard to the well-being of the people of South West Africa. This provision, amongst others, is tangible proof of the development assistance that the Government is prepared to give to the Territory, and we welcome this provision.

The provision whereby the State is to issue a guarantee to the Reserve Bank in order to enable the Reserve Bank to make funds available to the IDC for the purpose of export credit financing is obviously acceptable. In fact, the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs must make whatever concessions are necessary to boost our international trade even further.

The assistance being given to the Community Councils of Soweto and Dobsonville to raise loans for the electrification of the townships will certainly improve the living conditions of all the people living in those areas. I know that the electrification of the Black townships of Port Elizabeth is under consideration, and in this connection I should like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to give us a bit of active support in getting this matter of the electrification of the Black townships of Port Elizabeth expedited, because if he assists us in expediting the matter he will also be alleviating the fuel situation, but in any event it is long overdue and I think that once it is done in the Transvaal it should also be done in the eastern Cape because, generally speaking we have a greater need to boost our area than does the Transvaal with all its other facilities. I am not arguing against the facilities provided in the Transvaal. Let us, by all means, go ahead and provide them. All I am asking the hon. the Minister to do is to assist us in the eastern Cape area, especially the Port Elizabeth region.

Armscor operations are vital to South Africa and any strengthening of the existing structure, which is to be done in terms of this Bill, is welcomed by us. We have already had quite a bit of discussion on the auditing of secret funds, but I do want to add that during the 1978 debate the SAP moved an amendment actually asking for this to be done, and that is why we welcome this particular move.

We strongly approve of the fact that compensation be paid as a result of a train accident in which servicemen attached to the Western Province Regiment were injured or killed.

Taking all the clauses into consideration, one finds this Bill most acceptable, and therefore we on this side of the House shall not oppose the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I found the debate very interesting and I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House once again for their positive contributions which are very helpful to us. The hon. member for Parktown dealt with the measure clause by clause and I must say he did so very effectively. He also put certain questions to which I shall try to reply. If there are any further details which still have to be disclosed, I suppose we can do so in the Committee Stage.

†The hon. member for Parktown, in commenting on clause 4, in terms of which a maximum guarantee of R250 million is provided, said that he thought that that was not too big an amount and that we might even have to increase it one of these days. As Minister of Finance I can only say that I hope we shall not have to do so for a long time. I do not think we shall have to, for quite a long time to come, and I hope I am right.

In regard to clause 5 he said that he thought that it was regrettable that there had been a rather long delay in the electrification of Soweto. It is true that this matter has been under discussion for quite some time. There have been difficulties of various kinds that have cropped up. For quite a while I have been involved in this matter to some extent.

The point is, however, that we have now reached the stage where matters are being put in hand, and I think that we now have to do everything we can to get this under way and to make a proper success of it.

That brings me to the hon. member for Walmer who referred to the importance of the electrification of Black townships in the Port Elizabeth area. The hon. member made a useful contribution to the debate and in the light of that, if I have anything over at the end of the year we can certainly look at that. Seriously, however, it is an important matter, and obviously the process cannot simply be confined to Soweto. We shall certainly wish to discuss these matters further with the persons involved, like himself, to see what we can conceivably do. There is no doubt, however, that it is an important matter.

Clause 6 of the Bill is really a matter which concerns Planning, and the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs and Environmental Planning has indicated that he would like to give certain detailed information on that during the Committee Stage. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member for Parktown. I have quite a long report on this matter, but it will take quite some time to sort it out. The information will nevertheless be provided.

I think the hon. member finds clause 7 acceptable, and I shall therefore now deal with clause 8.

*Mr. Speaker, clause 8 refers to the establishment of the SABC in South West Africa and also serves as an explanation of the R5 million loan to that organization. It is felt that we should alleviate the burden of the SABC with regard to its assets in South West Africa which it is now ceding to the South West African Broadcasting Corporation. This is being done, firstly, by alleviating its interest burden on fixed capital which it is paying to the Treasury by reducing the fixed capital, i.e. the R3,180 million, and by transferring part of the loan debt of the SWA Broadcasting Corporation to the South West African Corporation. This involves an amount of R1 855 000. The South West Africa Broadcasting Corporation shall in future bear the loan indebtedness of that R1 855 000 and is receiving fixed assets amounting to just over R5 million. We consider the difference between the two amounts to be a dowry to the new corporation. This is a good description and I hope the hon. member accepts it, because if the accepts it, he accepts my argument. Actually it is therefore, to a large extent, a gesture on our part because we want to help the new corporation, to enable it to continue on a good footing. That is why we felt that we wanted to make this concession to them. If necessary, however, we can debate the matter further in the Committee Stage.

Clause 9 of the Bill relates to the question of the National Film Board. The hon. member for Parktown wants to know whether that board suffered any losses. I believe that the hon. member for Walmer replied to that question to a large extent. Naturally, the National Film Board had assets and liabilities, but the difference between the two was not very large. Perhaps I could just mention that the most important asset of this organization is a very valuable building. Thought is at present being given, in consultation with the Department of Public Works, to how that building may best be utilized, i.e. whether it should be sold or whether it should be used by the private sector or the Public Service. What is at issue is, inter alia, the question of rent, etc. However, the matter is receiving attention at present so that that asset may be utilized to the best advantage. I should just like to point out that when we talk of assets in this case, we should also take into consideration the technical knowledge which has been gained in that enterprise, the so-called “technical know-how”. In my opinion, this is very important these days, especially in view of the fact that the National Film Board was engaged in a highly technical industry.

The Minister of National Education has just handed me a note in which he sets out the whole matter clearly. He says that the film archive is to be retained and has an important cultural historical value. That obviously is also part of the evaluation of the assets. If hon. members want more information on this matter we shall gladly furnish it.

As far as clause 18 of the Bill is concerned, the hon. member for Parktown referred to its wording as well as to an amendment which will be moved by his party during the Committee Stage. The amendment is, in my opinion, an improvement on the wording and I want to say at once that I am prepared to accept it. I certainly do not want the impression to arise that I, as the Minister of Finance, am dictating to the Auditor-General what should be contained in his report. That was never the intention. It is just a question that one has to bear in mind what dangers exist in life today, particularly with regard to State security, and that it will perhaps be necessary to impose certain restrictions. I believe, however, that that is perhaps better stated in the amendment formulated by the official Opposition. Therefore I shall accept it in that form.

†Coming to the hon. member for Mooi River, I think he spoke about the same point As far as it provides that the Minister of Finance will decide on this after consulting with the Prime Minister and the Auditor-General, that is, of course, in terms of the Erasmus Commission’s recommendations which Parliament accepted last December. However, I would like to say that I do not think there is any question of the hon. the Prime Minister wishing to come into the picture. What is involved is purely that the hon. the Prime Minister stands at the head of State security. In those cases, I believe, it would probably be justified, even desirable, that the Minister of Finance should at least consult with him.

Mr. Speaker, could I just ask the hon. the Minister whether this relates to the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister is in charge of State security? In that sense I think it is understandable.

Yes. I am glad to hear the hon. member say that. The hon. member for Mooi River also raised some very interesting points about the very important sugar industry. There is no doubt whatsoever with regard to the extreme importance of this industry. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs would be delighted to give a short account of the prospects, as he sees them, in this important industry. He will do that during the Committee Stage. I hope we can leave it at that for the moment.

*Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have dealt with most of the clauses, as well as the questions which arose. I shall therefore let this suffice.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, the speeches from Government benches during the Second Reading debate yesterday were totally predictable. They emphasized again how far removed from reality Government members are in their thinking on the issue of homeland independence. So we had to go through a series of speeches extolling the virtues of separate independence. They told us—some of them almost in lyrical terms—that what they were doing for the Venda people was something great, something glorious. They dealt at length with the virtues of ethnicity and nationalism and lost themselves, very often, in dreams of their ideology of separate development. It was all very nice and neat. When one listened to the speeches of Government members, it became clear that one simply had to put people into separate racial compartments, I think “categories” was the term used by the hon. member for Klip River. Having done that, one could then let them deal with their own situation and do their own thing and everybody would be happy. This was the theme which ran through Government speeches throughout the debate. They almost surpassed themselves, of course, in attacking us and accusing us of having no sense of national pride and no sense of patriotism, and some of them even suggested that, in fact, our opposing the homeland concept was an attitude of colonialism.

That was the NRP. You were one world.

Well, our being one world does not matter. All sorts of strange phrases were, however, used, but most of what was said was complete and absolute nonsense. At no stage during the Second Reading debate did hon. members on that side of the House give honest and unequivocal answers to the two vital questions put to them. The first question was what real options the people of Venda have in regard to what is being offered to them at the present time. Secondly, we asked them whether homeland independence could really satisfy the ultimate political aspirations of the Black people of South Africa. Those were the two very pertinent questions put to Government members time and again by the Opposition. We asked them what their intentions and expectations were and what real merit they saw, in regard to those two vital issues, as far as South Africa is concerned.

On the first question, it is obvious that the Venda people have very few options indeed, as we said yesterday. On the one hand they could stay as they are, as a group of people who are discriminated against, who lack opportunities and who have no real political rights in terms of the laws by which they are governed in South Africa. On the other hand they could choose autonomy in their own small homeland which is being given to them by this proposed legislation. These are their options. In those circumstances some of them, particularly the leaders and the chiefs, chose the Government’s form of independence, and one can understand this sort of situation. What they see in this, is an opportunity to escape from the bondage of apartheid in the rest of South Africa, so they opt for independence. In a sense one can therefore understand why they made this choice. However, at no stage could these people have any thought of there being a reasonable alternative. At no stage could they have had any thought of improved conditions, opportunities and rights within the Republic itself because that is contrary to Government policy.

This is how the Government works. Time and time again this hon. the Deputy Minister, the present hon. Minister and his predecessor have emphasized—and boasted of the fact—that it is not the Government’s policy to force independence upon any group in South Africa, and the hon. the Deputy Minister nods his head in approval when I make that statement. They said that it is not the Government’s policy to force independence upon people in South Africa. However, we know from experience that the Government will go to almost any lengths to entice people to take independence.

How do you advise the people?

I am talking about Government policy. They will take every possible step to entice people to take independence. Certainly, for some of the smaller ethnic groups, the most potent weapon the Government can use in this regard is the little difference between the status and administration they can offer, which is at least something, and the absolutely nothing which those people have at the present time. This is the sort of enticement which is offered.

This brings me back to the nice words used by hon. members in the Government benches yesterday. They talked about their respect for the rights of people, their preparedness to work with people and to help them to develop and build their own sense of national pride, etc. This we had time and time again yesterday. On the basis of those assertions and expressions of such great sympathy and respect for the people of the other race groups, what are they offering to the non-independent homeland in South Africa? What do they offer to the Blacks in South Africa who reject the independence which the Government so frequently offers to them? What do they offer to the people of kwaZulu, Lebowa and Gazankulu? What are their options? What about the urban Blacks in South Africa? What does the Government offer them by way of the elimination of discrimination and respect for their humanity and their rights and opportunities in South Africa? They offer them very little, and that is why I say that at least in a sense, as far as the Venda people are concerned, I can understand the enticement of being told that in their small corner of South Africa, in their small segment, they can have a degree of autonomy, of running their own small region of South Africa. This brings me to my second question, a question which was not answered by hon. members on the other side of the House yesterday. Can homeland independence really satisfy the political aspirations of the Black people of South Africa?

Yes.

Government members say “yes”. We have said that from our point of view we are totally in favour of developing the under-developed homeland areas of South Africa. That we will do. We have said also that we are in favour of developing an appropriate administrative infrastructure in these areas.

How many of them accept your policy?

We do not discourage the Venda people, their ethnic pride, their achievements, their history, their culture or anything of the kind. We have full respect for that, as we have for the ethnic pride and nationalism of other people. But we recognize, as I have said, that they may gain some small satisfaction from having greater autonomy in their own region. The same, however, applies to other homelands. In the end, we are still going to be left in South Africa with a group of non-independent homelands and millions of urban Blacks who will share in what we choose to term White South Africa. We will still have non-independent homelands … I see the hon. member for Verwoerdburg shaking his head. Is it not so that we are going to have a situation in South Africa where, despite the fact that independence has been granted to Venda, Bophuthatswana and Transkei, in the end in what is termed White South Africa the greater preponderance of people are going to be Black, and how are the aspirations of these people going to be satisfied?

And a greater number of Blacks are going to be there too.

Yes, that is right. How are the aspirations of these people going to be satisfied? If their aspirations are not satisfied there is going to be a conflict situation, and this is what we are trying to avoid, or should be trying to avoid, in South Africa at the present time. If, in the so-called White South Africa, one is going to have millions of Blacks whose aspirations are not recognized and cannot be recognized by homelands independence, one has all the ingredients of a conflict situation. And if there is a Black-White conflict situation in South Africa, does the Government really think that the people of Venda, Bophuthatswana and Transkei will simply stand aside and take not part in it at all? Does the Government really think that the Venda will adopt the attitude that they have achieved their independence, that they are the Venda ethnic group, and that therefore they have no interest in and no responsibility whatsoever for what happens to their Black brothers in the rest of South Africa? This will certainly not be the situation. We ought to know, from our own experiences at the present time, that all over Africa—although there may be ethnic considerations and difference and separate national States in Africa—the fact of the matters is that when it comes to a situation where Blacks elsewhere see that Blacks in South Africa are discriminated against, they forget about their ethnic and national differences and say, whether they be in Africa, America or elsewhere, that the people who are being discriminated against are Black and they cannot stand aside to see their Black brothers being discriminated against. So this whole matter cuts across questions of mere ethnic considerations. The Government must realize that however much they may want to depend on ethnicity, on this sort of argument, when it comes down to basic issues, such as discrimination, people think in terms of people, and therefore Black people will identify with the plight of their Black brothers in Africa if we are not able to meet the aspirations of Blacks in South Africa.

Therefore, I do not believe that this Bill, any more than the other Bills of this nature that have come before this House seeking to give independence to a section of the Black community in South Africa, can in any way resolve the problems and meet the aspirations of the Black people in South Africa with regard to the whole question of race relations, their rights and their future in South Africa. That is one of the real reasons why one opposes legislation of this kind. It will bring about a needless fragmentation of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave is a typical pink liberal. His whole point of departure is that because we in South Africa have been created as a political unit as a result of the power politics of the colonial era, we needs must always find our political solutions for the problem of a diversity of peoples within the concept of a political unity that we must accept and develop further. He is quite aware that in a country like Cyprus, where there are 20% Turks and 80% Greeks, peace between the groups is simply impossible, unless there is partition. He knows full well that in a country like India, that was administered by Britain for centuries as a unit, the Muslims and Hindus separated from one another the moment independence was granted. Since it was not done in a peaceful and orderly way, it was accompanied by bloodshed in the course of which more than 3 million people lost their lives.

Consequently it is high time that these liberals of South Africa, the pink people of South Africa, realize that the choice in South Africa, a State of many peoples, lies between the concept advocated by the PFP and liberals, viz. that we must have political development take place in a unitary State, and the concept that we must make provision on a basis of co-operation, for establishing the freedom of separate peoples. That is the fundamental point of departure.

The hon. member for Musgrave asks what choice the people of Venda had. On the one hand they had the choice to propagate the idea which the PFP propagates, viz. that they want equal franchise on the basis of one man one vote in a unitary State. However, what would the result of that be? How many minority groups and how many majority groups would there be then? There would not be a single majority group, but there would be endless conflict due to the clash of interests within the political unitary State. It is simply inevitable that endeavours will be made to satisfy needs.

The hon. member for Musgrave must tell us what language must be the official language in the political unitary State. Must it continue to be Afrikaans and English, at present the only official languages in South Africa? Must the Venda language be totally ignored or must it be regarded as a kind of appendix language which can only really come into its own in that certain people want to use it, but is not really recognized in South Africa? That is only the Venda language, but what, then, of Sotho, Tswana, Zulu and the other languages we have in our country? Have the men over there, the men and the one woman, the official Opposition, any respect for the will of a people to exist, for the will of a people to have its identity recognized internationally just as the Turks of Cyprus do? The Turks do not want to be a minority group in Cyprus as a whole; they want recognition. The people opposite who speak about human rights, do not know what human rights are. They are people who grew up in a concrete jungle and do not know about the love of and for a country. Their whole interest is determined by what they can buy. If they can get something better elsewhere—irrespective of whether it is in America, Australia or Europe—then they sell what they have here and buy something else there. They are quite satisfied in any place in the world, as long as they can buy it with their money and as long as they can live in a concrete jungle. But for those people who are linked to the soil and have cultivated a love of what is theirs, those men have no understanding, nor does that woman. That is the whole problem we are faced with.

Order!

I mean the hon. woman. [Interjections.] The hon. member.

“The hon. members.”

I beg your pardon, Sir, I mean the hon. members.

It is difficult to say that.

Then the hon. member for Musgrave talks about “urban Blacks” as if that is a new concept, a new make, a new breed. The hon. member for Musgrave is the only Prog. from Natal. Because he is the only Prog. from Natal and lives in the concrete jungle of Durban, he ought at least to know a little about urban Blacks in and around Durban. I should like to know from him in what respect a Zulu from Kwa Mashu is different to a Zulu of Ulundi.

Nothing at all.

Precisely. Now the hon. member states that there is no difference. Nevertheless he wants them to be treated separately, to be included in a totally separate political concept.

You are talking nonsense.

That is exactly what his point of departure is and is also the point of departure of the Opposition in general. They are always asking: “What about the urban Blacks?” What about the urban Blacks, Sir? Captain Gatsha Buthelezi states that he represents the interests of the Zulus, irrespective of whether they are in Soweto, Kwa Mashu or Nongoma. He represents the totality of the interests of the Zulu. I can also give hon. members the assurance that he does not represent the interests of the Babenda. The hon. members ought to know that. The Bavenda say that they are not interested in the control that Gatsha Buthelezi would like to exercise not only over the Blacks but over the whole of South Africa. That is the conflict situation which arises in this multinational set-up in Southern Africa.

The only way to defuse it is to afford people who are conscious of a distinct identity, the opportunity to co-operate with one another as free people, as equals in an international situation, and to negotiate in a council of States of Southern Africa where independent Prime Ministers and Ministers can discuss matters of common interest with one another as equals. Just as is the case in Europe in the Council of Ministers or in the European Parliament, the independent representatives of sovereign independent States must be able to come together to discuss and agree on matters of common interest If they are unable to agree, then they must negotiate further. That is the concept which we believe should be put into effect in Southern Africa. I know that that will never penetrate into the skulls of the hon. members of the official Opposition. Therefore we are conducting a futile debate here. Nevertheless these things must be said for the sake of the record.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I understand that in the Committee Stage the first speaker on each side is allowed to deal generally with the entire Bill. We are busy with clause 1 and the hon. member for Musgrave dealt with it. Is the hon. member for Klip River entitled to speak on the whole Bill?

One speaker from each party is entitled to do so. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful that the hon. member drew attention to the fact that we are dealing with clause 1. I should really have been so grateful if he had told that to the hon. member for Musgrave, because if I am not discussing this clause, then the hon. member for Musgrave certainly did not discuss it either. However, since he stated certain standpoints, and I am replying specifically to them, I am entitled to do so, despite what the hon. member for the concrete jungle of Hillbrow wants to maintain. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat does not seem to realize that he has predicted the total falling away of the policy he is putting forward because he has said that the concept of a constellation of independent States—which the hon. the Deputy Minister singularly failed to deal with yesterday—is only possible in a situation in which Prime Ministers of such States can meet as “gelykes”. If anyone of the groups such as the Zulu group, which is one of the biggest, and is of so much importance to that hon. member and me because we live among them, refuses to accept independence, what will then become of the policy of the hon. member? Therefore everything will have to be put into motion by that party to force those people to accept independence. So it is not a question of making them an offer or giving them a fair choice. The pressure is going to have to mount and mount, with the Government giving the people of kwaZulu this apparent choice, which is no choice at all, before this pretence at a policy, this meaningless “policy” of the Government can be realized. As we have been saying, the choice that has been offered to file people of Venda is a very limited choice indeed. However, the principle has been adopted at Second Reading and therefore I do not wish to waste the time of the House repeating arguments made at Second Reading.

As I did yesterday, however, I want to call upon the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell us what his vision is of the constellation of States. I want to make it quite clear that we regard the passing of this Bill, which will give the people of Venda independence, as being unstoppable. It will be adopted by the majority, submitted to the Other Place and signed by the State President, with the result that the people of Venda will become independent. I want to tell the people of Venda, however, that we regard this measure as merely being one step into their future. It is not the ultimate step. There is another step that can be taken if, the Government of the Republic of South Africa can offer them a deal which will make it realistic and attractive for them to become part of a confederal situation, which we regard as being the ideal situation. The basis of the pluralistic thinking of this party is that the groups of people should be able to work together in a confederal situation in which everybody is going to be offered a chance to have a say, to meet on equal grounds, to co-operate and to build the sort of South Africa that we want.

We have opposed this Bill at First and Second Reading, and we shall also oppose it at. Third Reading, because it does not represent our ideal. However, after the passing of this Bill we shall still have that ideal because it will still be possible to attract the Black people of Venda into our orbit, the people the Government is trying its very best to drive beyond our orbit.

I also wish to say a few words about the question of the urban Blacks, a question raised by the hon. member for Klip River. He said there is no difference between the Zulu who lives in Nongoma and the Zulu who lives in Soweto as they are both part of the Zulu system and culture and speak the same language. I want to tell the hon. member, however, that he is making a very serious mistake, because although those people are Zulus …

Are you an urban White?

One of the great problems we have in this House is that when one wants to ask or suggest something to interest the minds of hon. members like that hon. member they do not listen. All they do is shout and make a noise. They do not listen to what one is saying because they are merely thinking of how they are going to answer one. I want to ask the hon. member to open his mind. As I said the other day if, after he has heard something, he puts his finger in his ear the words will not fall out of it. He must please listen to what I am going to say. The people of kwaZulu are Zulus, irrespective of whether they live in Nongoma or in Soweto. The people of Soweto, however, are in a special situation in terms of the whole economic set-up in South Africa. They have become part of the free-enterprise way of life by choice. They have opted for that. They or their parents moved from kwaZulu to the urban area and a new way of life. They have come to adopt a way of life and a system of values which is our way of life and our system. He is not, like the person living in Nongoma, part of a very specific way of life which is specifically Zulu. That is something with which we have nothing to do. The hon. member knows as well as I do that the Black people on a farm in Natal are members of the system of kwaZulu and not the White system.

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

Let me just make my point first I wish to say to the hon. member that the people in Soweto are not going to be moved. They are going to stay there. Surely, they are entitled to be given the option to exercise their political rights according to the value system they have adopted. One cannot force them back into another mould, a mould which they have abandoned. The hon. member for Klip River is talking about urban Blacks, people who have left behind a certain specific way of life which governs all their thinking.

The whole way of thought in kwaZulu is part of the Zulu system. But, when you move them out of that system into Soweto where there is another value system, the free enterprise system, they leave something behind and move into another phase, into another system of values which constitutes a different way of life. When we talk about urban Blacks we are talking about those people, and when amendments are discussed during the Committee Stage we shall make the point that we believe that people should have a choice, and it is a very real choice. It is a choice which identifies the most important group of people in the future of South Africa, the people we refer to as “urban Blacks” simply as because it is a convenience phrase and sums up the values and the things in which they believe and which are different from those things in which the people of kwaZulu believe.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he believes that there are different values between urban Whites and rural Whites.

Quite clearly the White population as such follow one system of schooling, they follow much more of a pattern …

At what stage did that start?

It has always been like that.

But you are basically talking nonsense.

The hon. member has asked me a question and must now give me a chance to answer and he must listen to the answer. I do not know what the point is in trying to answer a question if the hon. member continues shouting. What I am saying to the hon. member is that where the White population is very much on the same level, on the same scale—they have been to the same schools, they possess the same values and they are part of the Western free enterprise individual based system—among the Zulu population there are people who have moved out of the Zulu system. Whether it is by force of circumstances, by economic pressures or by choice, they have moved out of it and have become part of another system. I say there is a distinct difference between those two groups of people. It is not a parallel to the difference between a rural White and an urban White. There is a very, very real difference, a difference which is in the minds of the people concerned. They have accepted a different value system to the people who live in Nongoma. That is my answer to that hon. member.

Order! I want to remind hon. members that they must now confine themselves to clause 1. I shall not allow any further general discussion.

Mr. Chairman, clause 1 deals with the independence of Vendaland and it is my privilege to support this clause. I also want to give my full support to the hon. member for Klip River in what he said here this afternoon. To that, however, I want to add that it would be a sad day if the Venda people had to listen to the speeches made here by the hon. members of the official Opposition. They were not only destructive but also disparaging towards a nation in the making. I also want to point out to those hon. members that the Afrikaner people also moved to other parts and they were not as numerous as the Venda people are today. A small nation migrated and grew, and that is why we are sitting here today. We build up our country and nation. The Venda people have been in those parts for the past 300 years. We admit that they are small, but nevertheless they are a people with integrity. They are a people that want to maintain a distinct identity, a nation that is proud of itself and is full of courage about tackling the future. I do not expect of Venda that it should already at this stage speak with Transkei and Bophuthatswana. But the potential to do so is inherent in that people and we therefore want to ask …

Order! I should not like to rule my old benchmate out of order, but at the moment that hon. member is really discussing aspects that were accepted in the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, then you must set me right. In clause 1 of the Bill it is stated—

1. (1) The territory known as Venda and consisting of the districts mentioned in schedule A, is hereby declared to be a sovereign and independent State and shall cease to be part of the Republic of South Africa.
2. (2) The Republic of South Africa shall cease to exercise any authority over the said territory.

This is what the arguments of the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Mooi River applied to. Their argument is specifically that this delimited area, as we want to approve it in clause 1 of the Bill, has no right to survive. Am I wrong? Am I out of order? [Interjections.]

As long as the hon. member remains within the delimited area that is all right.

I maintain that that delimited area has the potential which will enable that people to grow. The evidence for this lies in the fact that other peoples who are also based on small delimited areas have already furnished proof of their viability. I therefore maintain that in this territory, however small it may be, there is a people with a will to survive. That people possesses the will to govern itself and I believe that they will be able to exercise their political powers to the fullest extent. The Government of that people will in future take its own decisions for those people. Unfortunately the official Opposition begrudges that people the right to develop within the borders of the territory that has been their birthplace for the past 300 years. In my opinion that is a disgrace. The hon. member for Klip River spoke about pink liberals and I believe that is more than true.

Order! The hon. member must now confine himself to the clause. The principle of independence has already been agreed to.

I believe that that territory has tremendous potential as far as minerals are concerned. Already one of the best and scarcest kinds of coal in the world has been discovered in Venda. If that coal ore, which is in great demand throughout the world, can be developed, then that is already one mineral that can contribute towards the development of that people. The agricultural industry in that territory is good and the rainfall there is also good.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member what his attitude will be if a huge sea of oil is discovered at Sibasa?

If oil is discovered in that country today or in any other country it remains the property of that country and I do not begrudge it them. [Interjections.] We would adopt the same approach as the Americans adopted towards Nigeria in this regard, viz. that it would remain their oil. If I could express a desire or a wish today I should wish and desire that that could happen in that country.

That territory is situated in a high rainfall region where fine plantations could be developed with a view to a timber industry. Major timber factories, for example, could be constructed there. Unfortunately the official Opposition does not want to learn that small nations have developed into great and strong nations in the past. Moreover they begrudge it those people. If I were a Venda today, I would never forgive this official Opposition for the crimes they have committed against a people that wants to live and wants to live independently. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to reply to a few questions very briefly. Before coming to that, however, I want to say that I am getting the same impression today that I once got when I went to see a rugby test match in the Free State stadium. During the preliminary match two very sociable fellows came along. They looked at what was going on and one said to the other: “Let us go, I have already seen this match.” [Interjections.] I honestly want to say that I have already heard this debate. [Interjections.] I have already heard it with perhaps one exception. That was the question which the hon. member for Houghton put to the hon. member for Stilfontein. That, too, is why I do not want to let the occasion pass by. By that question of hers the hon. member for Houghton gave herself and her party away completely. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

Do not argue now!

The hon. member revealed her fear that Venda would become independent and that it may possess a treasure which she desires. [Interjections.] Hon. members of the PFP fear that Venda may possess a treasure which they desire. [Interjections.] I would of course be extremely pleased if we were to hear this evening that oil had been discovered in Venda.

If it were, you would repeal this legislation tomorrow. [Interjections.]

It would be the greatest stimulus for the development of the Venda people. I want to know from those hon. members what they in fact envisage, particularly in view of the sound relations that prevail between the Venda people and ourselves. I just want to refer to one thing in this regard. Why do hon. members of the Opposition foresee that the possible discovery of oil would be to the detriment of our relations with Venda. Surely they have to sell their oil. Why should they not sell it to South Africa?

[Inaudible.]

I shall tell hon. members what hon. members of the Opposition would do. After all, they speak about a White spot. In view of the attitude of the official Opposition I am convinced that if Venda becomes independent they will permit aggression towards Venda and will try to conquer that country. [Interjections.] That is exactly what they will do. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton gave herself away completely as an absolute fortune-hunter. [Interjections.]

You are talking nonsense.

I am sorry. I should have preferred the hon. member to say that she wanted the wealth of the soil of Venda to be exploited.

The hon. member said something else about the independence of Venda, but before coming to that I first want to refer to one of the arguments of the hon. member for Musgrave. The hon. member for Musgrave said that if a clash were to occur between the Black people and the White people in South Africa, the Vendas living in Venda surely would not leave their Venda brothers in South Africa in the lurch but would come and fight side by side with them. What does the hon. member imply thereby? He implies that those people are a unit, that they are one people, that they stand by their brothers. He is intimating that the Vendas in Venda stand by their brothers in South Africa. By doing so he destroys his own argument By doing so he destroys his whole argument that the Venda in South Africa do not form part of the Vendas in Venda. That is why we argue that the Venda will be a unit. They ask it of us. That is why this legislation is worded in the way it is. The Bavenda drafted their own constitution themselves. Therefore the hon. member for Musgrave advanced an argument today which endorses our standpoint.

The hon. member wanted to know whether the freedom we are giving the Vendas could satisfy them. I want to point out to the hon. member that there are peoples in Africa, in Asia and in Oceania— I referred to this yesterday too—that are smaller in number than the Vendas. Their countries are smaller than Venda and they are poorer than the Vendas. Not one of those peoples has given up its freedom because they wanted to become part of another people or because they wanted to become part of another country. Nowhere in the world does this happen. However, there are countries in the world—this is so in Africa and it is so in other parts of the world—where peoples now share a territory with another major people. But they are trying to break away from that other people so that they too can achieve their freedom.

The other thing which the hon. member mentioned and maintained that we have not dealt with, was that people do not have an option. I said yesterday and I want to repeat today that this was in fact the case. They could have chosen the status quo. What is important, however, is that these Black people talk politics. They come together and discuss matters. Now I ask the hon. member what Black people accept the PFP’s policy. Not a single people.

Let us hold a referendum to test that.

That answers the question. They cannot satisfy the aspirations of a single people. I just want to say something about attitudes. What I find striking was that the last time discussions were held between the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of Venda, the hon. the Prime Minister said to them that he was feeling as he felt when he left his parent’s house as an adult On that occasion his father said to him: “My responsibility towards you does not end here and your responsibility towards me does not end here.” The reaction of the Chief Minister of Venda to that was: “Sir, that is how I feel, too. My responsibility towards you does not end here and your responsibility towards me does not end here.” It was a moving moment. That is the attitude. That is why I say that there will be co-operation. The hon. member for Houghton need not, therefore, be concerned about what may happen when oil is discovered in Venda.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister when he is going to deal with the question of the constellation of States.

I shall explain it to the hon. member one day. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear that our major objection to the independence of Venda, as enshrined in clause 1 of the Bill, is that large numbers of people who do not live in Venda are being deprived of South African citizenship as a result of this. Our attitude might be different if we knew that the people inside Venda wanted independence and that the people living outside Venda had been consulted and had consented to independence. However, nothing of this kind has taken place. There has not been a proper referendum. We only know that thousands of people living outside Venda are without any consultation whatsoever going to be deprived of their South African citizenship. Why do the hon. the Deputy Minister and other hon. members on that side of the House think that these people do not prize their South African citizenship?

The hon. member must not go too far now.

Well, I shall then come back to clause 6, which deals with citizenship. However, may I say that the concept of independence should mean if not entirely then at least some real form of viability. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not think that the fact that the Parliament of South Africa finds it necessary to vote R32 million this year in order to keep that area going, is an important indication of the continuing dependency of Venda on South Africa? In other words, I do not believe that it is correct to say, as clause 1 indicates—

The gross national income of the territory is R61 million while the Parliament of South Africa has to vote R32 million for that territory. Therefore it is strictly not correct to say that the Government of South Africa exercises no authority over that income.

Mr. Chairman, clause 3 deals with the legislative power of the Legislative Assembly of Venda. Clause 3(1) reads as follows—

In other words, it gives the Assembly the power and the right to delegate the authority to make laws to other authorities.

Secondly, it stipulates that the State President’s signature will not be necessary for a Bill to become law. In this regard I am concerned to ensure that laws which may be passed by the Legislative Assembly do not affect the rights of South Africans who are South African citizens within the Republic of South Africa. I consequently want to move the following amendment—

The object of this amendment is perfectly clear, i.e. to protect the rights of people who would otherwise be citizens of Venda, but, because they are resident in the Republic of South Africa, have South African citizenship, unless they make written application to the Legislative Assembly for a change of their citizenship.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member for Houghton for having made the amendment available to me so that I could study it. I appreciate their consideration. I have honestly tried to see whether I cannot accept this amendment or any one of the other amendments to prove that I do not simply reject them just because they have been moved by the Opposition. Unfortunately, however, I cannot accept this amendment or any of the other amendments, for the simple reason that there is a basic difference between us as far as these matters are concerned. Hon. members know what arguments we advance and we know what arguments they advance.

However, I want to point out another aspect, although it may not be directly concerned with the amendments, and that is the fact that as the clause reads at the moment, it is identical to the corresponding provision in the Venda Constitution. If I accept this amendment, it will mean that the Cabinet of Venda will have to change their Constitution. I want to point out the implications of this. Some time ago, when the first Black homeland in South Africa became independent, those hon. members asked us almost defiantly who was going to draw up the constitution of that State. They thought that we were going to draw up the constitution. But the representatives of that nation discussed it first in a committee and then in their Legislative Assembly. The Venda have drawn up a constitution themselves. Our Status of Venda Bill corresponds with it. If we accepted this amendment, it would mean that we would be detracting from the independence of Venda because it would then no longer have full independence. It would mean that the Parliament of South Africa would be passing an Act through which the Venda people would be forced to accept that it could no longer decide about this matter in the way it does have the power to decide at the moment. Therefore we would be turning its independence into a mere pretence.

This ‘Status of Venda Bill is the end result of negotiation. If we deviate from this today, after both Cabinets have agreed about the Status Act, it would mean that we are deviating unilaterally, and then we would be making a mockery of the negotiations. Then it would mean that the Government of South Africa has become a party with which one cannot negotiate, because the agreement one has reached with it means nothing. Therefore this is what we are doing. What is more, we have achieved consensus about this matter, and that party is a consensus party. The hon. member says that consensus which has been reached should be jettisoned in order to satisfy the minority in South Africa. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment, and with that I must conclude.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

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

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, we are going to object to this clause as well as to clause 5 because we are really being asked to ratify treaties, conventions, etc., which this House has not seen at all. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has published any such treaties or conventions or made them available, but I do remember that at the time the Transkei and Bophuthatswana independence legislation was passed, we were at least given a sight of the large number of treaties and conventions. We have no such sight of these now and we can hardly be expected to approve of them unseen.

Mr. Chairman, this clause does not refer to the agreements between the South African Government and the government of Venda. This merely refers to agreements which South Africa, as existing at present, has with other countries of the world or with other bodies or persons. If a Venda chief were to conclude an agreement with a company and grant that company the right to prospect for minerals after the South African Government or the Trust has given its approval, this would now mean that the Government of Venda would give effect to everything the South African Government had previously undertaken. Venda would honour agreements which the South African Government concluded on its behalf when it was still only a self-governing territory. That is what it amounts to.

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

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, what I had to say about clause 4, applies also to clause 5 as well. Therefore I shall not delay the House by repeating those arguments.

Mr. Chairman, we are voting absolutely blind on this clause. We have no idea what agreements have been entered into by the Republican Government with Venda. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister will enlighten us and tell us what sort of agreements they are. Is there, for example, an agreement as far as electricity supplies are concerned? Perhaps he can tell us about it [Interjections.] We would appreciate it if the hon. the Deputy Minister would tell us a little bit about these agreements with Venda. We do not know what they are.

Mr. Chairman, up to the present 61 agreements have been concluded between the two Cabinets. Those agreements have not been signed yet, but a date has been fixed on which they will be signed. There are still about 10 agreements on which the two Cabinets have to negotiate. Thereafter, they will also be concluded. As soon as that happens, the treaties will be published in the Gazette.

More or less the same things are involved as were involved in the case of Bophuthatswana. There are minor differences of course, but what is involved are matters such as transport, electricity, means of communication, etc.

Customs and excise?

All those things are covered in these agreements. As I have said, 61 agreements have already been concluded. After that they are published in the Gazette.

Mr. Chairman, it is regrettable that, unlike with the other Bills of this nature, we were not supplied with copies of these agreements in order to have a look at them. Could I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether or not agreements for the supply of electricity are going to be on a profitable basis for the RSA or whether they are going to be regarded as aid operations to the new State of Venda?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows precisely how all these things work. As far as Transkei and Bophuthatswana are concerned, they have to pay for the services that are being rendered there. If Venda is not able to do so out of its budget, there are negotiations between that State and the RSA. The aid being given to Venda has nothing to do with the rendering of services on a profitmaking basis. There are agreements which deal with customs and excise and which make provision for the payment of tax, sales tax, etc. The agreements make provision for the mutual discharge of all obligations.

Mr. Chairman, may I say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that Venda citizens living in so-called White South Africa pay a considerable amount of taxation through general sales tax and other taxes to the Central Government in the RSA. Is there going to be an agreement which directs some of that taxation back to the State of Venda?

Yes.

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

Clause 6:

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

I should like to motivate this. This is a very important clause in that it lays down who shall become a citizen of Venda when this Bill is passed and who shall cease to be a South African citizen. We feel very strongly about the fact that there are many thousands of people in South Africa who are going to object very strongly at being deprived of their South African citizenship.

It is true that subsection (3) of clause 6 does protect those people who were citizens of the Republic before the independence of Venda because, except as regards citizenship, they shall not forfeit any existing rights, privileges or benefits by reason only of the other provisions of this legislation. That is certainly a very important concession, one which I know people who lost their citizenship as a result of the independence of Transkei and Bophuthatswana were pleased about, particularly as it affects the retention of what is probably the most prized right of urban Blacks, viz. rights conferred under section 10(1) of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. That means, of course, the right to stay in an urban area when a Black loses his job and the ability to look for another job without first having to leave the area and re-entering after gaining permission to do so. It also contains the right to be placed on the housing list and the right of being a leaseholder of a house. It also means having the right to be an ordinary tenant of a house. All of these are very important rights which are protected by virtue of subsection (3) of clause 6 of this Bill. There is, however, considerable legal controversy over whether or not those descendants of such citizens born after independence will have the protection which is granted to people who were citizens of a former territory which was part of the Republic and had rights under the provisions of section 10(l)(a) and (b) of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act. We have thrashed this out in some considerable detail. Last year, and the previous year, when the whole question of the 99-year leasehold was discussed, the hon. the Minister said at the time that if it could be proved to his satisfaction that there was indeed ambiguity in the law, as far as the 99-year leases were concerned and the right of the descendants of those leaseholders not only to own a lease, but also to occupy the house to which the lease is attached, he would be prepared to change the law. I have not had the opportunity of persuading the hon. the Minister, because he has hardly been here this session as he has been a very busy bee, dashing backwards and forwards, but I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to a legal opinion submitted to me by a legal firm, one of the most prestigious law firms in Johannesburg. I cannot divulge the name of the firm, but I have permission to hand the opinion to the hon. the Deputy Minister. This opinion states very definitely on page 41 that—

They are, of course, referring to the conflict of the provisions of section 10(1) of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act and the rights which are protected by the clause 6(3) and the fact that people born after that date, that is their descendants, now fall under the provisions of section 12. In other words, they are foreigners. They fall under the provision of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act which declares them to be foreigners and which do not permit them to be in the urban areas at all, except with special permission. This is the conflict. I know it has been argued at some length by the hon. member for Johannesburg North when the 99-year leasehold legislation was under discussion. The hon. the Deputy Minister will of course assure us that we are wrong and that his own legal advice is contrary to the legal advice which I have just read out, but if that is so and if the hon. the Deputy Minister is so sure that the rights of these people are not affected, why will he not agree—and I am hoping to persuade him to do so—to insert these words to set the minds of everybody at rest? He says that that is the position, and the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development said during the debate on the 99-year lease that it was certainly the Government’s intention that the descendants of these people would also be protected in all respects with the exception of the loss of citizenship.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a matter of interpretation, as the hon. member has said. We disagree on the interpretation of this provision in the Consolidation Act I am of the opinion that it is not this clause that should be amended, but the provision in that Act. The hon. the Minister made it very clear what our interpretation was when he issued the following statement—

*Our interpretation of that Act is that the person in question and his descendants will not forfeit their rights and will qualify for the 99-year leasehold. This assures him of all the other rights. Consequently, he does not lose those rights. It is a fact, however, that we interpret the Act the way the hon. member wants it to work in practice. Theoretically, she interprets it differently. We are going to administer the Act the way we interpret it, and we are going to do what she wants us to do.

Mr. Chairman, I wish merely to record that we have very serious objections to this clause as it stands. We had intended to amend subsection (1), but I was told that the more appropriate stage to do it would be when we got to the schedules. Therefore I intend moving an amendment on schedule B, which will obviously have an effect on subsection (1) of this particular clause.