Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, we in the official Opposition should like to be associated with the motion which has been moved by the hon. the Prime Minister. We are aware that the hon. Marais Viljoen takes over the office of State President at a difficult time in the history of our country, his assumption of office following upon a series of traumatic events which have touched the very office of the State President. We hope that this is the start of a new era. We wish him and his wife well. He has a difficult task ahead of him, but we hope that under his presidency the State President may become a symbol of the unity of our people and enjoy the respect of all sections of the South African nation.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP would also like to associate ourselves with the motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister and to pledge our full co-operation and support in upholding the high office to which the hon. Marais Viljoen has been elected. We have the highest respect for him as a person, and we shall give him all the help and respect we can to make his period of office one which I am sure will be a successful one and which will give to that office the lustre that it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, we support the terms of the motion and extend our good wishes and our prayers to the State President and his wife.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Prime Minister announced the resignation of Mr. B. J. Vorster from the office of State Presidency on 4 June, we described this as a traumatic event, especially as it followed upon the publication of the report of the Erasmus Commission and the meeting between the State President, the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. We expressed the view that we hoped that with the announcement of that resignation a painful chapter in the history of South Africa would have been closed. We regret that the motion before us in a sense once again draws attention to that painful chapter in the history of South Africa. The events of the past seven months are well known in this House and around the country. The attitude of the official Opposition is also well known to be one of great respect for the office of the State President, but our attitude towards the situation which arose as a result of the Information scandal, as disclosed in the report of the Erasmus Commission, is equally well-known. We have examined very closely the terms of the motion which the hon. the Prime Minister has put before this House. It contains certain expressions of regret and certain expressions of tribute which we in the official Opposition, in all good conscience, cannot be associated with. Although one would have hoped that this could have been a unanimous decision of this House, the circumstances which have arisen and our own consciences dictate that we should not be associated with the motion. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. the Prime Minister has felt it necessary to introduce this motion. It is a motion which traditionally is moved upon the retirement of State Presidents at the end of their period of service, but I do not believe that in the circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment it was necessary to apply this procedure to a different situation. The hon. the Prime Minister knows that he is asking those of us in opposition to support sentiments which I do not want to deal with in detail but which are impossible for us to support. Whilst I regret this very much, I have stated—and it is on record—that as a person I have had and do have the greatest respect for Mr. B. J. Vorster as a doughty and strong opponent. I put it on record last week in this House that I respect him as a person, as a politician and as a political opponent, but there were things done by him which I could not condone and I pleaded that we should let him go in peace. That is how I still feel. He has paid the price and I believe that that is the end of the story, so let him go in peace. I would have let that be, but I am now being asked to vote for something which I regret we cannot support, and therefore we shall not be able to give our blessing to this motion.

Mr. Speaker, history alone will be able to assess the role and value of Mr. Vorster as Prime Minister. What we as members of the House of Assembly do know is that Mr. Vorster was a masterly politician and led his party successfully in three consecutive elections. We also know that he was a very able debater and was always a very dedicated and courteous Parliamentarian in the House of Assembly. The people outside will remember Mr. Vorster as the Minister of Justice who took very effective measures to combat subversion and communist infiltration and who perhaps prevented a bloody revolution in our country. We will remember him and his wife as persons of high rank who could never hide their inherent humanity and courtesy. We can only say thank you for the many good things which Mr. Vorster did for South Africa, such as his desire to create better race relationships. As for the rest, we must leave it to history to evaluate Mr. Vorster’s contributions on various levels. We are simply not able to do so now, because we are politicians and we are not unbiased.

My party supports the motion and strongly deplores the petty attitude of the official Opposition and the NRP.

Hear, hear!

It is the right of every member in this hon. House to vote according to his conviction on any matter which is introduced here. Speaking on behalf of the majority in this House, I want to say that it is our wish to regard the work done for South Africa by the hon. B. J. Vorster not only as being of the greatest value to South Africa, but also as the work of a man who only wanted to serve South Africa. In addition, we had here a husband and wife who as a married couple enhanced all the positions they occupied. I therefore think that all right-thinking South Africans—and they form the vast majority—will associate themselves with this motion, and we do so gladly, paying this couple the tribute which they deserve.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The University of Pretoria has deemed it desirable that its principal Act be amended (a) to provide for university activities outside the seat of the university; (b) to provide for a modification of the constitution of the senate of the university; (c) to provide for the affiliation of or co-operation with any institution or part thereof which has as its object the carrying on of any branch of higher education; (d) to provide for the organization of any portion of the university into schools, colleges or institutions of the university and for the setting up of governing boards therefor; and (e) to effect certain consequential amendments.

Section 2 of the principal Act is amended to provide for university activities outside the seat of the university. In the faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, training functions are performed at hospitals situated outside the borders of the seat of the university. This affects medical students on the undergraduate and post-graduate levels and dentistry students on the undergraduate level, and provision is also made in this connection for nursing students. Hence the reference to the S.A. Medical and Dental Council as well as to the Nursing Council. The possibility is also being created that university activities may be practised at a college or institution which is situated outside Pretoria and which has affiliated with the university.

Section 8 of the principal Act is amended to provide for a modification of the constitution of the senate of the university. Allow me to motivate this. Firstly, in terms of section lA(iii) of the National Education Policy Act, Act No. 39 of 1967, the training of teachers for primary and pre-primary schools shall be provided at a college and at a university, with effect from a date determined by the Minister of National Education.

The University of Pretoria and the Transvaal Provincial Administration have already agreed on the means, methods and terms according to which this co-operation will take place. In view of this co-operation between the university on the one hand and the Pretoria College of Education and the Transvaal Education Department on the other hand, the parties concerned have deemed it advisable that a member of the Pretoria College of Education—and if there are more colleges of education in Pretoria at a later stage, a member of each of such colleges of education—should also be a member of the senate of the university. In terms of this agreement between the university and the Transvaal Provincial Administration, the university will be represented on the board and in the senate of the Pretoria College of Education. Secondly, since section 1(a) of the National Education Policy Act, 1967, also provides for the training of teachers by the university in co-operation with a technikon, it is deemed advisable, with a view to a possible future agreement about some form of training between the university and such technikon, also to provide for a member of such a college to be a member of the senate of the university. Thirdly, it is proposed that section 29 of the University Act be amended to provide for any institution or part thereof which has as its object the carrying on of any branch of higher education to affiliate with a university. If this were to happen, with regard to the training of pharmacists at the Pretoria Technikon, for example, it would also be desirable for a member of the staff of such a technikon to be a member of the senate of the university. Section 29 is therefore being amended to provide for the affiliation or cooperation with any institution or part thereof which has as its object the carrying on of any branch of higher education. The primary reason for this is that the possibility of the training of pharmacists by technikons in cooperation with universities, especially universities with medical faculties, was considered by the Universities Advisory Council and the Committee of University Principals at the request of the Minister of National Education. Such co-operation will involve more intensive academic training and not an expansion of facilities. The South African Pharmacy Board, too, has already expressed its support for graduate training for pharmacists. Secondly, co-operation between the university and the Pretoria Technikon will have to be based on section 29 of the University Act However, this section only provides for the affiliation of the university college with the university. The proposed amendment of section 29 will make it possible for a part of the training done by the technikon, such as the training of pharmacists, to be affiliated with the university.

Section 4 is being inserted to provide for the organization of any portion of the university into schools, colleges or institutions of the university and for setting up governing boards therefor. This new section, which already occurs in several other University Acts, is being inserted with a view to future university development.

Section 5 is required for the purpose of making certain consequential amendments. Because reference is made to a “college of education” in the proposed paragraph (f) of subsection (1) of section 8, it is necessary to define this term in the Act.

Mr. Speaker, these amendments will make the University of Pretoria better able to perform its task of instruction, inquiry and education, and to be true to its motto, ad destination persequor.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has very fully motivated the amendments which are being proposed here, and it is unnecessary to discuss diem. I think it is only necessary to say that as the official Opposition we wish to congratulate the University of Pretoris on these new extensions and new directions in which it is now moving, geographically and otherwise. It can only be to the advantage of higher education in South Africa. Consultations were held in connection with certain questions which arose about this proposed amending legislation, but they were concluded satisfactorily. Therefore we wholeheartedly support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, the University of Pretoria is situated, of course, in the most learned city in the world—Pretoria! I say this without fear of contradiction. Research can be undertaken to find out whether this is so. Percentagewise, it is the most learned city in the world, and more than 16 000 students are enrolled at the University of Pretoria. Over the years of its existence, the university has produced more than 50 000 graduates. On behalf of this side of the House, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Rissik. He is a former lecturer at the University of Pretoria and he has reason to be very proud of that fact. I thank him and congratulate him on having introduced this measure in this House to obtain approval for the activities of the University of Pretoria to be extended to other spheres as well. May the university continue to build on the foundations of what it has already achieved and may it make a major contribution to the development of our manpower, which is so essential for the development of the economy and of our country’s industries in general. We wish to tell the university and the rector, Prof. Eddie Hamman, that we hope that all will be well with the university in the future. We shall think of them in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is usually a pleasure to participate in a debate in which the hon. member for Rissik has a share. Actually he has the lion’s share of this one, and I want to congratulate him on that. The amendments which are being made here testify to the continuous growth which is taking place at the university and which is necessitating further amendments. We should like to congratulate the University of Pretoria on this.

I just want to make one or two remarks. The first one is that this legislation gives effect to a desire and a need which has existed for a long time, i.e. that there should be close co-operation between colleges of education, technikons and universities. One is glad that the obstacles have now been removed. In the past, it has not been so easy to reach agreement with regard to cooperation between the universities and the colleges of education in respect of education and training. The same applies to the technikons. It seems that the competition which there was between the institutions at one stage is now something of the past. I want to congratulate all the interested parties on this. We should be particularly gratified to learn of the decisions in respect of the training of pharmacists, because it is in respect of pharmacists in particular that the diploma students of the technikons were to some extent discriminated against in the past. They actually passed the same examinations as the graduate students who had studied at the universities, and they could never take their studies any further. As a result of this agreement, and of co-operation between technikons and universities with regard to the training of pharmacists, one of the old bones of contention between the respective institutions, and also between people in the same profession, has been removed. As far as Pretoria is concerned, it belongs to the past. One hopes, therefore, that the same benefits will be extended to other institutions throughout the country.

We support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, all that remains for me is to express a word of sincere thanks, in the first place to the hon. member for Johannesburg North for his kind words about this legislation, and about the university itself. I want to thank him for that in particular. I also thank him for his written inquiry, an inquiry which I trust has been answered to his satisfaction.

Furthermore, I also want to thank the hon. member for Durban Central, not only for his friendly support of this Bill, but also for his very positive and valuable remarks about the statutory amendments proposed by this Bill. I trust that with his support, the universities in South Africa—in particular, of course, the University of Pretoria—will continue to grow and develop.

Finally, I wish to thank the hon. member for Hercules, who is chairman of our National Education study group, for his kind words, as well as for the appreciation which he expressed. I also thank him for the way in which he is serving our common alma mater here today.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It would not be realistic to assume that the attainment of political independence by Venda will automatically lead to financial independence for that country in the foreseeable future. Venda still finds itself in the position which is characteristic of developing countries. There has been little development in the secondary and tertiary sectors of the economy of Venda, and the contribution made by agriculture, forestry, fisheries and hunting to the gross domestic product of Venda still amounts to more than 30%. Moreover, by far the greater part of this contribution comes from the self-supporting sector, i.e. the sector which does not enter the market. As in the case of other developing countries, the scarcity of economic activity in Venda is a factor which inhibits the generation of State revenue. It is therefore obvious that Venda will continue to need the financial support of South Africa after it has become independent.

On a previous occasion, when the proposed financial arrangements between South Africa and another independent Black State were discussed in this House, a great deal was said about the question of the economic viability of that State, and the concept of economic viability. I do not think it would serve any purpose to repeat all the statements made at that time. At the same time, however, it is essential to take a realistic view of the situation of Venda. In an article published by the Africa Institute of South Africa earlier this year, reference was made to the views of the Morse Commission, which reported in 1959 about the economic requirements of the former High Commissioner Territories: the present Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland. That commission proceeded from the standpoint that viability did not necessarily imply that a particular country should be able to manage without any financial aid from abroad. However, it does mean that the State concerned should at least be able to finance its current expenditure itself.

The Africa Institute pointed out that in terms of this standard, Venda could not yet be regarded as viable. This was also the finding of the institute in respect of another principle which is relevant in determining viability, i.e. that a viable State should be able to provide job opportunities for the greater part of its adult labour force.

In our consultations about the question of the provision of financial aid to Venda in the future, I believe we should be very mindful of these arguments. However, I would like to refer to a few aspects in this connection.

As far as the question of job opportunities is concerned, it is true that a considerable number of Venda men are still working outside Venda. However, a similar phenomenon is found in other countries which have already attained political independence. In fact, a good example of this is presented by the former High Commissioner Territories. It is also interesting to note in this connection that the percentage of the Venda population living permanently in that country has increased since 1970 and amounted to approximately 70% in 1977. Although this tendency does not necessarily imply any significant developments in respect of employment in Venda, it does indicate stability as far as the occupation of the country is concerned.

Over the period between 1971-’72 and 1978-’79, Venda’s own revenue, expressed as a percentage of its total budget, increased by more than 150%. Unfortunately, not enough information is available at the moment to separate Venda’s current government expenditure from capital expenditure. However, it goes without saying that the encouraging tendency to which I have just referred would be even more striking if Venda’s own revenue could be compared with current expenditure only.

There is a further factor which has to be borne in mind. The principle has already been accepted that amounts should be transferred to the Black States equal to the indirect taxes arising from the economic activities in those States. Because of insufficient statistical data, it has not yet been possible to calculate exactly what is due to Venda, in respect of customs duties, for example. As a result, only nominal amounts have been transferred to Venda in this connection in the past. However, the necessary surveys are now being done, and the position will change considerable after Venda has become independent, when its share of the joint revenue pool of the customs union will be determined on exactly the same basis as those of the other countries to which the customs union arrangements are applicable. Although it is too early to make any projections in this connection, the new developments can be expected to lead to a perceptible increase in Venda’s revenue from these sources.

With these remarks I have tried to illustrate the positive aspects. However, as I indicated at the very beginning of my speech, there is no doubt about the fact that when Venda has become independent, South Africa will have to give financial aid to this new neighbouring State. It is the intention to give this aid in a way which will enable Venda to build the necessary stability into its public finances and to face the future with confidence.

†The arrangements which are proposed do not differ in any material respect from those made when Transkei and Bophuthatswana attained independence. For the convenience of hon. members I would, however, like to refer to each of the various provisions very briefly.

Clause 1(1):

The Black States Constitution Act, which at present provides for the transfer of funds to Venda, will cease to apply to that country when it attains independence. The total amount made available for Venda in respect of the 1979-’80 financial year, will not yet have been transferred at that stage. Clause 1(1) therefore envisages, firstly, the transfer of the balance of such funds to Venda.

Services which at present are carried out on behalf of Venda by Government departments in the Republic, will become the responsibility of Venda on the date of independence. The relevant departments have budgeted for the full 1979-’80 financial year and will accordingly experience a surplus in respect of the period from the attainment of independence by Venda and 31 March 1980. It is intended to transfer such funds to Venda as well.

Clause 1(1) also provides for the transfer to Venda of any further amounts that may be made available in the Additional Appropriation Bill by way of ministerial authorization.

Clause 1(2):

As in the case of certain Government departments which have budgeted for a full financial year in respect of services in Venda and will stop incurring expenditure in this connection at the time of independence, there may also be other bodies that will have unutilized funds that can be transferred to Venda. Clause 1(2) aims at authorizing the transfer of such funds.

Clause 1(3):

Taxes paid by citizens of Venda in the Republic in terms of the Black Taxation Act, are transferred to Venda in terms of the provisions of the Black States Constitution Act. As has been mentioned, when Venda becomes independent these provisions will cease to be applicable to that country. Clause 1(3) authorizes the transfer to Venda of that portion of such taxes for the 1979-’80 financial year which has not been transferred when Venda becomes independent.

Clause 1(4):

Section 7(1) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, in terms of which additional funds hence funds not included in the budget—can be made available by the Minister of Finance for the defraying of expenses does, however, also place a limit on the total amount that can thus be made available. Section 7(2) of the Exchequer and Audit Act also provides that steps should be taken for the voting of such additional funds during the parliamentary session following upon the date on which the funds are made available by the Minister. Clause 1(4) provides that any additional funds made available for Venda by the Minister of Finance in terms of clause 1(l)(d) will also be subject to the above-mentioned provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act. This means, in other words, that such additional funds for Venda will be included in the total amount which the Minister can make available in terms of section 7(1) of the Exchequer and Audit Act—2% of the relevant budget at the time. Such funds then must also be voted.

Clause 2:

Clause 2 relates to financial years after 1979-’80. In terms of this clause the necessary sanction is obtained for an agreement with Venda in terms of which the following amounts can be transferred to Venda every year, subject to such conditions and for such periods as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Foreign Affairs may determine—

1. (a) An amount equal to the taxes paid every year by Venda citizens in the Republic in terms of the Black Taxation Act.
2. (b) An amount determined by the Minister of Finance, but not exceeding the total expenditure of the RSA in, or on behalf of, Venda in the 1979-’80 financial year—i.e. expenditure by normal Government departments and other bodies, for example the South African Railways and the Post Office—plus an additional amount which Venda will need, in particular to continue with its new services in the 1980-’81 financial year, i.e. a full financial year, minus the additional revenue which Venda will receive in the 1980-’81 financial year. Once the total amount at issue here has been determined, it shall remain constant. It shall also represent a statutory amount in future estimates.

Clause 2 also provides for the transfer to Venda of any additional amount that may be voted for Venda by Parliament in any specific year.

Clause 3:

In this clause provision is made for the transfer of certain assets to Venda.

Clause 4:

It is an accepted principle that assets in connection with services that become the responsibility of a Black State, are transferred free of charge to the Government of that State. In the case of assets of the Post Office and the South African Railways and Harbours Administration the intention, however, is to compensate the relevant bodies for assets which are transferred, by reducing the relevant bodies loan debt to the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition opposed the granting of independence to Venda in terms of the legislation that recently passed by this House. However, I want to make it quite clear that the official Opposition is not opposed in principle to the concept of independence or to the concept of self-determination for peoples in Southern Africa. Therefore, now that the Venda people are going to become independent, now that the concept of independence has been accepted by Parliament I think it would be irresponsible on our part if we were to say that we also opposed the granting of aid to Venda in order to make the independence of that nation a possible and viable proposition. On the contrary, I think it is our duty, despite the fact that this party did not support the legislation granting independence to Venda, to see to it that the necessary funds are given to the Venda people so that they can become a viable entity. For that reason we shall support the Second Reading of this measure.

However, one cannot let this matter pass without commenting on the concept and the principles involved in this matter. Firstly there is the concept that it is not necessary for a country to be economically viable in order to be independent, but that a country should rely on outside aid in order to establish its economic viability. While this is not something new that is being allowed to take place it is certainly something which, to my mind,’ is undesirable in the whole structure of States in the world. What has happened is that ever since the Second World War colonial powers have walked away from obligations to countries and to States and left them to create, in their own independence, more and more problems, not only for themselves, but also for the whole world. What has happened as a result is that there is now not only an East-West conflict in the world, but also the North-South conflict, with the underdeveloped countries, which cannot be regarded as being economically viable on their own, believing that the industrialized world owes them a major obligation. In conference after conference the underdeveloped countries demand more and more from the developed countries to pay off what they call a debt for past exploitation.

If independence had been associated with the concept of economic viability, however, this new conflict in the world would never have arisen. This does not mean that because this situation exists Venda, as an underdeveloped country, should receive no assistance from us. On the contrary, bearing in mind our philosophy on Southern Africa, the philosophy of federation in terms of which people should become part of one entity in Southern Africa, we accept that in these circumstances South Africa has a particular obligation towards Venda to ensure its continued existence, to ensure the prosperity of its people and to give assistance in this regard. However, the North-South conflict has other problems which I believe we must bear in mind when we look at Southern Africa. What happens when a country becomes independent is that it uses its position, sometimes its strategic position, sometimes its vote at the United Nations, sometimes its swing either towards the non-aligned or the aligned powers in the world, to extract advantages from people. In fact, it uses its particular position to extract aid from one or other side on the international political scene.

That is the situation throughout Africa. There is competition between the West namely the European Economic Community and the United States of America on the one hand and China and Russia on the other, all four of them sometimes falling over each other to provide aid to a particular underdeveloped nation. That kind of situation is again a most undesirable one that cannot be allowed to develop in the structure of world politics.

We have to look at Venda, because although it is a very small country, it actually occupies a very strategic position from South Africa’s point of view. Its position in relation to Rhodesia and Mozambique gives it a very strategic place in Southern Africa, despite the smallness of the territorial area that Venda occupies.

Order! The hon. member is ranging a bit wide in discussing matters which have already been discussed in the debate on the Status of Venda Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am only dealing with the question of why we should give the money and why we cannot allow a situation to develop in terms of which Venda might well decide to enter this competitive field. I only express the hope that this particular territory will not seek to use its strategic position to create a competitive situation in regard to aid to Venda. That does not mean to say that Venda should not obtain, or seek to obtain, aid from other countries in the world, provided there are no strings attached. I believe that what is significant is that the aid the hon. the Minister is asking this Parliament to give to Venda is aid without any strings attached. I think that is an important fact we have to stress, not only in respect of Venda, but also in regard to its legislatively independent predecessors, Transkei and Bophuthatswana. South Africa has given aid to those territories without there being any strings attached, and that is a little different from much of the aid granted by other territories that have sought to interfere in Africa, and there is proof of this.

I want to refer to Transkei, for example. Despite the fact that on occasion Transkei has, in many respects, not adopted a very friendly attitude towards South Africa, the aid has continued. I think that is an example South Africa is setting in the field of international relations.

I now want to turn specifically to the question of financial aid and raise with the hon. the Minister an aspect which has troubled me for many years. When one looks at aid given to underdeveloped countries in Africa, one finds that aid is given by, for example, the Eastern bloc in a tangible form. In other words, they look at a particular project or aspect and then grant aid in respect of that particular aspect However, when one looks at what the Western powers are doing, one sees that they give money which is not seen in any tangible form by the people of that underdeveloped State. The result is very often that although the West may be pouring much more money, in real terms, into a particular underdeveloped country than, Russia or any of its satellite States, or even China when it was more active in Africa, the impact made upon the people of that underdeveloped country by the lesser aid in concrete form is far greater than the impact made by the financial aid given by the Western powers in those circumstances. There are many examples of this that I could give to the hon. the Minister. The question I want to pose to the hon. the Minister is whether, in many respects, we do not do ourselves a disservice when we give money as opposed to concrete aid, because when we give concrete aid, the people to whom the aid or the assistance are given can see, in real terms, what aid is being given and can benefit from it in real terms. Let me therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider that matter and bear it in mind in our relationships with other States, particularly the emerging States in Southern Africa.

I want to raise one other matter which is relevant to this. I think that South Africans very often tell themselves that they are giving very substantial aid to homelands that have become independent and would actually like to see how that money is being spent and whether it is, in fact, being correctly spent I raise a matter which may be delicate, but I do think it is necessary to raise it. Recently there has, for example, been publicity that Transkei is alleged—and I use the word “alleged”—to have purchased a large number of trucks from Turkey which are not particularly useful and cannot be utilized adequately. Transkei is, of course, an independent country and can buy from where it likes. It can buy trucks, and it they are useless that is its business. It can buy from Turkey, the United States or anywhere else. That is entirely its affair. However, there are people who ask whether aid that is given should not be accompanied by the necessary degree of expertise and guidance to ensure that that aid is correctly channelled and not wasted. It is true, as I have said that it is not our business. Once the money is given, the people are free to do with it what they like. However, it is a responsibility we have, and our people would like to see the aid properly channelled and not wasted, as could happen in such circumstances.

I think that when we look at Venda, its economic viability and its need to have the aid and assistance, that we are, in fact, proposing to grant to it, we have to look specifically at a couple of things which are fundamentally important. Firstly, the question of economic viability is also related to the number of economically active people in the country as such. One of the things that obviously worries one when looking at the percentage of economically active people in Venda in relation to all the people of Venda —based on the 1970 figures—is that only approximately 25% of all Vendas are economically active. That percentage is much lower than the average for South Africa and is undesirable as such. However, if one only looks at the economically active people in Venda itself, one finds an even lower figure of only approximately 14%. No country can actually function adequately when only 14% of the people in it are economically active. One of the things that I believe has to be done is to take very strong measures to assist Venda in getting a higher percentage of its people economically active so that it can become more economically viable It is perfectly true that the population of Venda is very small. Therefore in absolute terms these figures are not very dramatic, but that does not matter. The reality is that the percentage of any people, however small that people may be, is what really counts in respect of its economic viability.

Secondly, there is another obligation that we have. There is a tremendous shortage of people at what I would call the management, executive, professional and manufacturing levels. If, in the entire population, there are probably fewer than 1 000 people who can be classified as being professional people, an emerging country can be regarded as having a tremendous shortage of leadership. In 1970 for example, only 2,3% of the population in the homelands were, in fact, connected with manufacturing or industry in some form or other, and that certainly can be regarded as a real problem that has to be dealt with.

The fact that Venda has become independent and the fact that it is a country to be separate from our own, does not mean that we do not have an obligation to try to encourage, in every possible way, the creation of greater skills in Venda and better training and the creation of a leadership cadre of professional people who can lead in industry and in manufacturing so as to see that the country can stand on its own feet, even though it is so small in area and so relatively small in population. I hope that we shall, in addition to merely voting money, make sure that the money we give to Venda is used in order to put that country on a road where it can play a meaningful part in Southern Africa and where its people will be able to provide, from its own ranks, the leadership that is required in any country which is to become independent.

As Venda is now on the path towards independence, I wish to say that we give it our blessing and hope that it would succeed economically and that its people would prosper, and we shall support the hon. the Minister to give whatever aid is necessary to make that prosperity possible for the people of Venda.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful for the fact that the hon. official Opposition is supporting this legislation. It is a pity, though, that the hon. member for Yeoville expressed so many misgivings and reservations. This legislation is occasioned by the approaching independence by Venda. We are concerned here with the principle of the provision of financial aid to Venda by the Republic of South Africa. It is not a strange or a new principle to give aid to a territory which has become independent. In fact, when a country has become independent, it obviously needs assistance in the initial stages. Good examples of this can be found in the history of the British and French territories in Africa which became independent.

This Bill provides, firstly, for the maintenance of the financial status quo as far as the present financial year is concerned. Secondly, it enables the Republic to give financial assistance to Venda in the years to come, and thirdly, it provides for the transfer of any property the ownership or control of which is vested in the State, including the Post Office, the Railways and the Transvaal Provincial Administration, to Venda when it attains independence. It is clear that the Republic is once again honouring its undertakings in a way that testifies to good faith just as it did in the case of Transkei and Bophuthatswana.

In this way, Venda will be able to build up its national economy in a really orderly and stable way to a satisfactory level. The basis on which the Government is placing Black States on the road to independence compares very favourably with that of many great powers as far as the attainment of independence by their territories is concerned. The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned the way that some of these colonial powers simply withdrew from the territories for which they were responsible. The world, especially the UN, should take cognizance of this approach on the part of the Republic of South Africa. This Government not only creates a government structure and an infrastructure, it also places those people on a financial basis which will enable them to handle their own affairs from the day they become independent. When a people or a country becomes independent, one cannot dictate to it as the hon. member for Yeoville tried to do.

In my opinion, this piece of legislation is in the best interests of Venda and of the Republic as well, and therefore we gladly support it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville voiced certain thoughts which I must confess I share with him when it comes to the question of aid, for which we are making provision in this Bill, to the emergent State of Venda.

Before I go any further, I should like to say a word of welcome to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance who has been sworn in today. I must confess—and I do so very readily—that I sometimes feel that my knowledge of the Department of Finance is a bit sketchy. I must say that I am therefore going to feel very much at home with the hon. the Deputy Minister, but I am sure we will both learn together as time passes. Certainly, I welcome him and wish him very well in his new post.

The Bill before the House makes provision for funds to be made available to the State of Venda. I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in relation to what the hon. member for Yeoville has said. One of the star countries on the whole continent of Africa is the country of Malawi, which is a very small country but which is probably the most successful, economically, of all the independent countries in Africa. They have achieved that through employing two resources …

In Southern Africa.

Well, I said in Africa as a whole.

East Africa.

Well, for the sake of the argument I will accept that it is in Southern Africa. They have taken the two resources they have, namely ground and people, and put them together to exploit agricultural potential of their country. This has not only made them viable, but it has made it possible for them to export food— and to be able to export food is, for an African country, an absolutely amazing achievement. I think the hon. the Minister now has in the ranks of the Cabinet in the Deputy Minister of Co-operation and Development, the hon. member for Bethal, a member who will be able to pay attention to that aspect of the homelands which are not independent. I should think that he will also be able to play a part in the territory of Venda which is now becoming independent. He should be able to help them in a very, very positive fashion indeed to develop what Venda has—we all agree that there is not a great deal there at this stage, but the development potential of that area from an agricultural point of view is something to which I should think the hon. the Deputy Minister could give attention. This could be done through suggestion or influence or in any other way if the funds are made available. As the hon. member for Yeoville quite rightly said, undertaking such projects is the way to tackle the problem Venda will have of developing itself. The more and the quicker they can develop themselves, the less of a burden there will be on the Exchequer of the Republic of South Africa.

So, Sir, in welcoming the arrangements that are being made to allow the State of Venda to maintain its independent existence and to give it what one might almost call a bridging viability until such time as they become viable themselves, I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that there is a very, very clear path which can be followed, namely to develop the agricultural potential of the area, a potential which is considerable. I have been to Venda very recently and know that there are considerable developments taking place, particularly in the tea plantations there. I believe one should look in that direction and perhaps almost exclude entirely attempting to develop industrial areas and that sort of thing in the territory of Venda. Where there are three homelands in very close proximity in the area around the town of Tzaneen, it might well be that to start with competing industrial activities among the three homelands would be a waste of time. That competition we could very well avoid. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he give consideration to that possibility. We shall support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister said, the object of this Bill is to ensure payment of certain amounts to Venda for the financial year 1979-’80 and after 31 March 1980. There are several factors which give rise to the attainment of independence by a country, including its financial strength, its infrastructure and several other factors to which the hon. member for Yeoville has already referred, and to which the hon. the Minister, I believe, will refer specifically. Some important concepts in this connection, I believe, are contained in the Status of Venda Bill, and especially in the preamble to the Bill—and the hon. member for Yeoville also referred to this—from which it appears that Venda desires independence and that the Republic is prepared to grant independence to Venda. The Republic has hitherto contributed in various ways to the infrastructure of self-governing Venda, and it is clear from this Bill that such support may be of very great value to Venda in the foreseeable future.

I should like to mention a few aspects to indicate that the Venda Development Corporation has done some very important work in this connection since its inception. The corporation was established on 1 December 1975 in terms of section 6(2) of the Promotion of the Economic Development of Black States Act, Act No. 46 of 1968. From the inception of the corporation up to 31 March 1978, an amount of R7 474 300 was approved for development over a wide spectrum. Aid has been given in several spheres, but in the short time available to me I shall refer to only a few of these.

The aid that has been given has been directed primarily at the agricultural sphere, since Venda has a very great agricultural potential. Venda has a very high rainfall. The Limpopo catchment-basin has an annual rainfall of approximately 350 mm, while about 100 mm of rain falls in the Sout-pansberg every year. Venda has several perennial rivers. This abundant supply of water has caused the Venda Development Corporation to support in particular the establishment of project farming, which is considered an obvious field for investment.

In this respect, the corporation also helps to establish a maize mill. This was done in co-operation with the Northern Transvaal Corporation Ltd., at a cost of approximately R645 000. A major investment was also made in respect of Tshivhase Tea Producers (Pty.) Ltd. It is interesting to note that according to the figures I have been able to obtain, about 3 600 Vendas enter the tea industry every year. As the hon. member for Mooi River has already pointed out, this is quite a significant figure in this connection.

A further major contribution has been made by the Venda Development Corporation in respect of the mango industry. In this connection, an amount of R750 000 has been invested in the production of chutney in order to utilize the unused mango crop. They are concentrating very much on expansion at the moment.

It is alleged that only 14% of the Venda are economically active, but with the particulars I have been able to obtain from the annual report of the Venda Legislative Assembly and the report of the Auditor-General on the Venda accounts, it is very difficult indeed to check this allegation. It is interesting to note that during 1975, 26 759 Vendas approached the labour bureau for work, while in 1976, only 14 758 Vendas came to seek work in this way. These are interesting figures which I believe may shed more light on the subject.

As regards the agricultural figures I have been able to obtain, it appears that in the year 1973, approximately 579 012 ha of Venda was used for pasturage and approximately 55 814 for field husbandry, while 4 174 ha was under forest. Great attention is given in the territory to the planting of citrus and sub-tropical fruit trees in particular. During 1972 approximately 19 000 new citrus trees,’ 18 000 sub-tropical fruit trees and 6 000 deciduous fruit trees were planted. In the field of livestock, approximately 72 100 head of cattle were counted in the territory over this period, as well as 5 200 sheep and 52 400 goats. Of the crops, especially dry-land crops, the most important one is maize. 21 021 ha is used for this. Then there is grain sorghum, which occupies 4 160 ha. Other industrial crops include sisal, sugar cane, tobacco, cotton, coffee and tea. In the developing area, special attention is also given to the construction of office and business centres.

A major problem in this connection is the relative isolation of Venda with regard to the commercial centres. In the light of this the Venda Development Corporation, in co-operation with LTA, invested R120 000 in a construction company, for the establishment of development projects, especially of offices and business centres.

As far as mining is concerned, a good deposit of coal has been discovered. This has been discovered during the past two years in particular. In addition, attention is being given to the mining of copper and graphite, and to other developments in the mining industry. As far as Government expenditure is concerned, it is also interesting to note that considerable growth has taken place in Venda itself during the period from 1971-’72 up to the present day. For the 1971-’72 financial year, the amount in this connection was R5,1 million. During the 1973-’74 financial year, it was R7 million; during 1976-’77, R17 million; and during the period 1977-’78, R23 million.

In view of all these factors I should like to support this legislation. I believe that very good work is being done in this respect. The fact that Venda cannot yet be self-supporting at this stage, and that it is economically not quite active yet is only an added incentive to help the people of Venda in a direction where they will eventually be able to help themselves.

I have allowed hon. members to cover a very wide field in this debate. I leave it to the hon. the Minister to reply to that now.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to this debate. I believe that all hon. members who participated in the debate, including the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Mooi River, the hon. member for Smith-field and the hon. member for Roodepoort, presented their arguments in a very able way. It is quite clear that they devoted considerable attention to this matter.

†Coming to the hon. member for Yeoville in the first place, I have to agree in broad terms with virtually everything he said. It is true that the question of economic viability for underdeveloped countries is a very big problem. Of course, it is particularly obvious in a huge continent like Africa. It is some-thing which is characteristic of most of Africa, and we have to bear that in mind. The hon. member raised an interesting point when he said that when the Eastern Bloc countries give aid they tend to do so in a specific form, and that the West does so in a less specific form, more in the form of financial aid. Of course, he raised the implications of that sort of thing for us in Southern Africa.

I believe that what the hon. member actually meant was that there is sometimes an advantage if the aid can be seen in a concrete form. I think that is what he meant. That is true. We are dealing, however, with a country which is still to become independent. There is no doubt, of course, that financial aid is absolutely of the essence. We have to provide financial aid on a sound basis and, hopefully, on an adequate basis. That is our great aim.

However, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Yeoville that, over the last few years at any rate, we have been increasingly giving attention to “project aid, as we call it. There are some quite important examples of that and we will without any doubt bear that in mind in dealing with the case of Venda. I certainly take that point. The hon. member also pointed out that it might easily happen that an underdeveloped country without much experience of running its own affairs, particularly its financial affairs, might tend to indulge in expenditure which in the end might lead to a good deal of waste. This is unfortunately so. However, as the hon. member is also aware, one has of course the question of independence there. It is a newly independent country which is obviously trying to flex its muscles. One has to be very careful not to create the impression that because one is prepared to give financial aid, one is simply going to wish to interfere in their own decisions and judgments.

I believe a method which goes a long way towards resolving that important problem is, of course, co-operation. If we have trust and confidence in them and they have trust and confidence in us, then by consultation and co-operation we can go a very long way. That is, in fact, a very good characteristic of what is happening in this respect.

The question of the proportion of the economically active population in a country like this is obviously extremely important and underlines the importance of continually stressing training and education at all times In a country like Venda I think it can be accepted that the very much greater proportion of the people working outside Venda would be substantially economically active, That is why they are, in fact, mostly outside the country. So, if one includes that in the total it is more than 14%.

*I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Smithfield for his interest. I think he stated his case very briefly, but also very thoroughly.

†I appreciate the kind remarks directed by the hon. member for Mooi River to the hon. the Deputy Minister. For a moment I was looking for the hon. the Deputy Minister in another part of the House before I realized that he was sitting virtually right behind me I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member tor Mooi River very much and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will, with the interest shown and the co-operation of members, e.g. the hon. member for Mooi River, make a great success of his assignment.

The hon. member is quite right that emphasis should be placed on agriculture in countries such as Venda. I remember that many years ago I said in a lecture that to my mind especially in Africa agricultural development was a prerequisite to industrial development. I still think it is absolutely so, and that is what the hon. member too was really saying. He spoke about the importance or developing the combination of the soil and the people, and in this regard he mentioned Malawi. I think the stress should be put on agricultural development for some years at least. I am glad the hon. member mentioned Malawi, because I think that they have a good deal to show and I think it is another example of where South Africa has played no insignificant part. I think our relations with Malawi have been excellent and what we have managed to do there has been a very good investment. I think that bears out the hon. member’s point.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Roodepoort for the trouble he took with his speech. It is quite clear that he made a study of Venda. The information he gave is really very important I learnt a great deal by listening to the hon. member and we shall really benefit from an analysis of the information he furnished concerning the economy of Venda. I think he summarized it very well and explained it in a very balanced way. We are grateful to him for doing so.

I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their support. In fact, I wonder whether, if I had introduced the Bill which is now before the House before the Status of Venda Bill and this Bill was accepted, the Opposition would not have accepted the Status of Venda Bill as well. However, this is only an idea which has occurred to me. I do not want to take it any further now, for there has been very cordial co-operation in this debate, and I do not want to start something which we could well do without.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned last night, the hon. the Minister had made a brief speech in which he said he could not resist attacking the argument I had used, and I had commenced but not completed a brief speech in which I said that that feeling was mutual. The gist of the hon. the Minister’s reproach to me was that I had conceded that it would be necessary, at some time in the future, to pass a measure of this kind in order that the amounts which had, in fact, been expended could be ratified in some way, but that I was under no circumstances prepared to agree to it at this stage. The hon. the Minister found that illogical, and he found it an additional illogicality that I should have proposed an amendment in which I said that if this clause could not be negatived one would have preferred that the ratification of the moneys deemed to have been appropriated should date from 1 July 1979, or a future date, in any event. I do not want to retraverse ground which I traversed in detail at Second Reading when, as I recall, the hon. the Minister did not adopt the same point of view in response to the same arguments I am about to use now. In brief these are that when, in any sort of business or organization, one finds that there have been irregularities, one knows that one is going to have to get that organization back onto a financially even keel sooner or later, but that the right way to do this would be, firstly, to investigate the irregularities all the way through to account, if one possibly can, for every cent, but if one cannot account for every cent, then to at least account for the bulk of the money involved, and then to examine the consequences in terms of management changes that may be required, and what that means in this case is clarity about what prosecutions, if any, may be necessary. When all of these things have been done and, on both the financial and the personnel side, the necessary steps have been taken, only then is it the time to ratify the books of account. That is the position we took in the Second Reading and it is the position we take now. I remind the hon. the Minister once again that he has done his best to give us figures, and that the figures he has given us account for only R29 million out of R65 million. That leaves R35 million or R36 million about which we want to hear a very great deal more before we are prepared to vote for any clause of this kind.

Mr. Chairman, I argued this point during Second Reading already. I think it is unfair for hon. members simply to talk of R64 million that has allegedly been misappropriated. We have to accept that some of that money was lawfully appropriated for projects that are still in progress, projects which, although they were not known at that stage, have now in fact been made known. The question hon. members are putting is whether it is the time to move the provisions of this clause now or whether we should not rather wait until other matters have been disposed of. In my view, if we can, in a single piece of legislation, create the machinery to deal with problems that may arise in future, then surely it is better to do that immediately rather than to wait and to come forward with one little piece of legislation after another later on. Personally, I foresee—and I am being very frank when I say this—that when the Advocate-General has done certain work, when the Pretorius Committee has disposed of its work, and when all the investigations that have been instituted, have been finalized, we may still have to come to this House to rectify certain matters. However, in terms of this Bill we are not going to handicap any of the bodies that are at present engaged in investigations, whether it be the Reserve Bank, the Police, the Pretorius Committee or whatever body, in their activities. This Bill has to enable the Treasury to close the books for a specific period. We cannot leave them open for an indefinite period. Unless we do this, all sorts of remarks will simply be passed about these things in the Select Committee every year and the old, played-out issue of the former Department of Information will again be discussed in the Select Committee and in Parliament every year. Therefore, I really cannot understand the objections by the hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to traverse the ground which the hon. member for Parktown has traversed. I want to deal somewhat more with the technical aspects of this provision.

There are some questions I specifically want to direct to the hon. the Minister. In clause 6(1) it is specifically said that the amounts involved are now deemed to have been appropriated for the former Department of Information. Firstly I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this now means that the amounts are going to be taken out of the accounts of the Department of Defence and the Department of the Prime Minister, under which the former Bureau for State Security fell, and be re-allocated to the former Department of Information? Will the audited accounts presented for the years in question therefore have to be reopened and re-audited, because in terms of this clause, as I understand it, all the audited accounts, since 1974, of the Department of Defence and the Department of the Prime Minister will have to be corrected? Is that what is going to happen, because if that is not the case it means that the law will not have been complied with once this particular Bill becomes an Act?

There is a second question I want to ask the hon. the Minister. In his Second Reading speech he went out of his way to say (Hansard, 18 June 1979—

On what date, therefore, will they be deemed to have been appropriated, because clause 6(1) gives no date on which they will be deemed to have been appropriated. Does that mean that they will be deemed to have been appropriated on the date on which the money was actually spent, or will they be deemed to have been appropriated each year when the appropriations were made, or will they perhaps be deemed to have been appropriated on the date on which this Bill is promulgated? What does this really mean? I must tell hon. members that I have very serious problems, in regard to the whole accounting aspect of this matter, because of the vagueness of clause 6(1).

There is another point I want to put to the hon. the Minister. Every Appropriation Act on the Statute Book of our country specifies specifically an amount of money that is being appropriated. It is required by law to state that Rx is being appropriated for various purposes, but what we are now dealing with is a unique situation for which I do not believe there is any precedent and behind which there is no logic, because in this clause no amount is specified, although whatever that amount may be, it is deemed to have been appropriated. The only information we have is not contained in an Appropriation Act. It is contained in the report of the Erasmus Commission which has analysed certain information available to it, and one assumes that that is correct. However, I have never seen this happen, and I do not believe there is any statutory precedent whether here or in any other country that adopts this method of financing, for one to have an Appropriation Bill in which no amount is specified. That is, however, what is happening here. I would have imagined that we would have been told that we are appropriating Rx for a certain Vote for a certain year, everything being done in the proper form. However, what is happening here is that one will actually, as a result of this Bill, have to reopen all the audited accounts since 1974, re-audit them, redraw them and resubmit them. I assume that that is the intention, because there is no contrary intention contained in this Bill. That is the first reason why I have very serious technical difficulties about clause 6(1). I believe that if it is passed in this form, serious problems are going to be created.

The second problem involves subsection (2) which states, and I quote—

which I shall deal with in a moment—

This means that Dr. Rhoodie’s purporting to have spent money—I say “purporting”—on what he said was a secret project, automatically allows such money now to become a charge on an appropriation being set out in this globular form in terms of subsection (1). What is the effect of that? The effect of that is that whilst the present unauthorized expenditure can be recovered in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act, authorizing that expenditure immediately makes it impossible to recover it. One can recover it in terms of section 8, in the case of a liability owing to negligence or something else, but it can no longer be recovered as unauthorized expenditure. I can give an example which immediately springs to mind. The Select Committee on Public Accounts reported on the R30 000 in cash which was given, without authorization—the Select Committee refused to ratify it—to a gentleman by the name of Van Rensburg. Mr. Van Rensburg, however, was party to the falsification of records and wrote subsequent letters indicating that he had not received the money. There was clearly no authority for that. What is now being said, however, is that there was no misappropriation and that it all took place under a proper Vote of the department Even though this money is purported to have been incurred for a secret project, it is now a charge against this appropriated money.

This was, however, never a secret project. It merely purported to be a secret project. There was nothing secret about it. What happened was that the person had to publish something and wanted more money. It was a perfectly open publication. There was nothing that had to be kept secret about it. However, it purported to be a secret project. The result is that it now becomes authorized expenditure, completely contrary to the wishes of the Select Committee on Public Accounts which does not want it to be authorized expenditure and recommended to Parliament that it should not be ratified. Therefore in terms of subsection (2) one is removing one of the remedies of the State against people who actually incurred unauthorized expenditure. One is preserving the remedy for negligence and all sorts of other things, but one is no longer allowing oneself to say that it is not, in fact, a charge against appropriated money, nor money authorized by Parliament, and that the relevant persons therefore had no right to spend it One is losing that right completely.

I can give another example which worries me and to which I do not have the answer to this very day. When The Citizen was being run for a period of time it incurred losses, and money was given to The Citizen in order to cover those losses, money over and above that given to Mr. Louis Luyt and his company. What was that money given for? Was it a loan or a grant? I have no idea. I have never been told anywhere what it was. As I understood it, the State would have had no difficulty in recovering that money if it had wanted to because there was no charge against any Vote. There was no Vote and therefore no authority for it Now we find the situation that this money is now purporting to have been incurred for a secret project. It is now a charge against the Vote which is now being created and where money is now being appropriated. I do not know whether one will ever be able to recover it. My fear is that by passing clause 6 in this form, we are depriving the State of a major remedy in respect of unauthorized expenditure, and therefore I must say that in addition to the reasons which the hon. member for Parktown has advanced, from a purely technical point of view and from a point of view of wanting to protect the money of the taxpayer, I do not believe that we can vote for the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has really gone a little bit to town on this clause and has raised some points which I do not particularly see as having any relevance to this clause.

First of all, we regard it as being desirable that the appropriation shall be deemed to be in respect of the financial years in which the moneys concerned became available to the former Department of Information. The hon. member has moved an amendment to insert “on 1 July 1979” after the word “department”. I take it that it is presumably the hon. member’s intention that Parliament’s regularization of these moneys should take effect from 1 July 1979. That is how I read the amendment.

That is if it happens at all.

In terms of the Bill as it now reads, the appropriation is deemed to take effect from the date of promulgating of this measure. The hon. member for Parktown says this measure is premature and that we should have waited with it.

I think this is a classic case where we should not delay but do it now. We have had many inquiries into this matter. For example, we have had the Erasmus Commission inquiring into a number of aspects that are involved here, while the Pretorius Committee has been doing excellent work in clearing up a number of difficulties and financial problems. They have successfully gone to great efforts not only to protect the assets of the State, but also to recover moneys, as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech. We have just set up the State Trust Board, and I do not think we must try to anticipate what the State Trust Board is going to be able to do. I do not have the slightest doubt that it will take this matter much further. It is going to recover more moneys and more assets for the State. That is certainly one of its most important functions. But the hon. member for Parktown says that we should not introduce this measure now. It is premature, he says, but at the same time the hon. member for Yeoville says that it should be made effective as from 1 July 1979—a date still to come, earlier than the date we had in mind.

I did not say that.

Yes. The hon. member said on 1 July 1979.

No. I said that we cannot support the passing of this clause at all.

That is not what the amendment says. Let us deal with the amendment. The amendment says: On page 4, in line 24, after “department” to insert the words “on 1 July 1979”. I want to know what the significance of that date is. Our date is obviously to be the date of promulgation. This date of the hon. member for Yeoville is going to precede the date of promulgation if we include it in the Bill.

You do not understand.

The hon. member for Parktown says that the measure is premature, yet he wants the date to be earlier than ours.

You are confused.

The hon. member must help me …

You need help because you are confused.

Yes, I think I do need help, because I must say that although I spent a lot of time on this amendment overnight, I am still rather lost. Supposing I accept the amendment to make it effective from 1 July 1979, will the hon. member then accept clause 6?

No.

This is the only amendment to clause 6.

We told you from the beginning that we do not want the clause to be passed.

This was also my difficulty last night in regard to the remarkable logic which the hon. member for Rondebosch displayed. Here we now have another classic example of this kind of logic. The only amendment to clause 6 is this one … [Interjections.] If this was to be such a difficulty, I would have thought that other amendments would have been moved to the clause in the light of all the points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville this morning. This has been on the Order Paper for some time. If I accept this amendment, are the hon. members opposite going to accept clause 6?

I have told you repeatedly that we cannot accept it. Can you not hear?

Who is then bluffing whom?

I think you are getting confused.

Well, Sir, I think I am confused by the amendment but not by the clause. The clause does not confuse me, but the amendment certainly does. That is the point I am trying to make.

As regards the question whether all these accounts are to be reopened, that is not something I am contemplating. We have a State Trust Board and it may want to do certain things, and we have an Auditor-General, who is going to audit this and who may want to look back and deal with certain things. We have got the necessary machinery. I suggest, with respect to the hon. member, that he must not try to anticipate all sorts of possibilities, some of which I think could be hypothetical. Let us leave it to the people concerned. The people on the State Trust Board are going to be thoroughly competent people, and they and the Auditor-General will decide what further, if anything, needs to be opened up. That is, I think, a perfectly fair approach.

I say again that, while I have taken account of the points raised by the hon. member, we have his amendment before us. He says that, even if I accept the amendment—which will pre-date the date we had in mind and which is in conflict with the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Parktown that this is premature—it will make no difference to his attitude to clause 6. Then why not move other kinds of amendments to clause 6 so that we could have studied them?

It would take more than an amendment to make us accept clause 6.

I have an idea that, even if we had accepted other amendments to clause 6, they would still have opposed the clause because they have made up their minds that they are not going to accept it. What is then the use of having this amendment?

I may say, Sir, that this has been drawn up after the most careful study. This is a short Bill, but I want to assure the House—and I am very pleased the hon. the Prime Minister is here, because he can bear me out at once— that this Bill has occasioned the most intensive study, drafting and consultation with legal experts, the Treasury, the Auditor-General and all the persons who we felt could best assist us. It is a very considered measure. I cannot possibly from my side amend clause 6. It is an absolutely considered point of view we have incorporated here after many, many weeks of constant study. I hope the Opposition will see it in that light.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with just two things. Firstly, the hon. the Minister has not dealt at all in his reply with the technical problem I raised a short while ago. In this regard a very heavy responsibility is going to rest on him. I again draw his attention to the simple example of the R30 000 in respect of Mr. Van Rensburg. In terms of clause 6(2) the hon. the Minister is going to find great difficulty in recovering that money. I do not think he actually intends to let Mr. Van Rensburg off the hook. The trouble is that he is doing it nevertheless. That is the tragedy of the whole matter.

Why do you not read clause 8?

Secondly, I want to try to explain to the hon. the Minister a simple procedure which is followed in this House repeatedly, and that is that one can be against a clause in toto, irrespective of whether it is amended or not. One does not like the clause, because it is no good and as Opposition we have the duty even to try to make something that is no good perhaps a little better. One has to do that even though one does not find it acceptable. That is one’s job as Opposition. The hon. the Minister has never had the experience of being in Opposition, and therefore does not know what the duty of an Opposition is. That is, however, what it is all about. Let me try to explain to the hon. the Minister what he is actually doing. If I understood him correctly—and he can correct me if I am wrong—he says that what is going to happen is that the appropriation will take place on the date on which the legislation is promulgated. Is that right?

I shall answer you in a moment.

The answer is important. Did the hon. the Minister say that?

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member give me a chance to answer?

Yes, Sir, but I do not want to lose my speaking turns.

Well under those circumstances I shall reply when I address the Committee a little later.

I understood the hon. the Minister to say that the appropriation would take place on the date on which the Bill was promulgated. The difficulty I have with this is that the Bill provides the opposite. The Bill does not say there will be appropriation on promulgation and it does not say “we appropriate”; it says “it shall be deemed to have been appropriated”. In other words, what one is doing, if one takes the ordinary meaning of words—we are not like Alice in Wonderland; we take the words in their ordinary meaning—it means one is appropriating retrospectively. That is what we do not want to allow and that is why we chose a future date, not even as a second prize, but as a 20th prize, to try to improve this provision a little bit.

When the hon. the Minister says that he is going to appropriate on the date of promulgation, we must bear in mind that even on that date it will be appropriated retrospectively because of the words “deemed to have been appropriated”. That is why I have raised the whole question of reopening all the books, but to that question the hon. the Minister has not replied. With respect, we are trying to protect him from the wording of this measure which is neither in the interest of the taxpayer nor in the interest of the hon. the Minister. This clause provides for retrospective appropriation and therefore it is retrospectively creating a situation to prevent the State from recovering unauthorized expenditure. We regard that as a tragedy and we cannot allow that to go by without voicing our protest against it.

I make it very clear so that the hon. the Minister ought to understand. We do not like clause 6, but we shall like it even less if it does not create the situation that the appropriation cannot become retrospective. That is the logic behind it. It is something which has been done in Parliament repeatedly and therefore it is nothing new. With respect, the hon. the Minister ought to be able to follow it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Finance said that he had given this particular clause lots of consideration and that he had drafted it very, very carefully indeed. I can fully understand this, because, as the hon. the Minister will remember, I referred to this clause as “the admission of guilt” clause. Therefore, in an effort to get the Ministers responsible for transferring the moneys voted by this House from one department to the other off the hook, this clause has been very carefully considered. The clause has the effect of ensuring that the moneys which passed through to the Department of Information due to the actions of the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Prime Minister, in his capacity as the Minister of Defence, will now be authorized ex post facto.

I must reiterate that we in these benches, even if, as the hon. member for Parktown has suggested, we get all the facts and figures that we need, cannot support the clause until such time when those responsible for transferring the money have paid the price for having acted in an unauthorized manner.

Mr. Chairman, what I cannot understand about the Opposition is that they are adopting this kind of attitude despite the fact that we are by no means asking for the legalization of certain matters by means of this measure. We are merely asking for the allocation of amounts paid from various accounts. We are requesting that those amounts should be regarded as having been allocated to the former Department of Information.

Surely the size of the amounts can have no effect on the matter. The hon. member for Parktown is very concerned about the fact that he is only aware of a certain amount whereas there may still be further amounts. Could the size of the amount in this case make any difference to the principle of the matter and to the method we wish to employ to rectify matters? This is part of the cleaning-up work we have to do; not only we on this side of the House, but also the Opposition. The approval of the Bill is part of the work we have to do in order to be able to put things right. The size of the amounts cannot alter the principle of the matter in any way. As we become increasingly aware in future of what the amounts were expended for and also become aware of other projects, these will also be accounted for so that we might be able to explain and account for the full amount involved here. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the case of Mr. Van Rensburg. However, Mr. Van Rensburg’s amount has nothing to do with the secret projects. If the hon. member will glance at clause 6(2), he will observe that reference is only being made to secret projects of the former Department of Information. That R30 000 has nothing whatsoever to do with a secret project.

But it comes from secret funds.

Yes, admittedly it comes from secret funds. But it is not a secret project Clause 6(2) refers only to secret projects.

If the hon. member for Yeoville would go a little further and read clause 8, he would observe that Mr. Van Rensburg cannot, under any circumstances, get off the hook on the grounds that this amount has been allocated to the former Department of Information. He remains liable, and if his liability can be proved, he will have to pay, as the hon. member for East London North requests. He will be brought to book and he will have to give an account I really cannot understand how the hon. Opposition can have any problems in connection with this matter. If they want to display their co-operation, and if they want to get this matter over and done with, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has stated in this House so many times, they ought to give their full support to this clause, because it contains the provision with which we shall be able to rectify the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear that this Bill will obviously become law on the date of promulgation. I have said it is regarded as desirable that the appropriation shall be deemed to be in respect of the financial years in which the moneys concerned became available. That is what I have said. [Interjections.] That is exactly what I have said. I have read this out and I have said that the Bill will come into effect on the date of promulgation.

*Mr. Chairman, I should like just to add that Parliament is not being requested to appropriate new funds. That is not the case at all. [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish hon. members of the Opposition would just listen for a while. There is no question of new funds being requested or of new funds being appropriated. In practice, it is being requested in this Bill that the application of, for example, the funds appropriated by the Department of Defence for the former Department of Information should be regarded as having been duly appropriated. That is all that is being asked for. I therefore do not think any accounting adjustment is necessary. I cannot understand that it has any bearing on what we are seeking to do here.

Then, I am also pleased that the hon. member for Aliwal referred to the Van Rensburg case. In fact, the hon. member for Yeoville also referred to it. In view of this provision the payment of R30 000 to Mr. Van Rensburg may then be regarded as appropriated funds. In that respect I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville. That is true. However, since this was an erroneous or irregular payment, it can be regarded as a loss which may be recovered from the people responsible.

Such as Van Rensburg.

We should not anticipate these matters, Mr. Chairman. We have created a special body in the form of a State Trust Board. We should place this State Trust Board in a position to proceed with its functions. Then, later on, we can see what becomes of this. I do not think we should anticipate these things.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? If one has an unauthorized act in which the agent hands over property of the principal party to a third party, one can then recover that property because it was an unauthorized act. The moment that one ratifies the unauthorized act one’s right to recover the assets handed over in an unauthorized manner disappears. Is that not basic law of agency as the hon. the Minister knows it? Is that not where we are actually today giving Mr. Van Rensburg a present of R30 000 when we vote in favour of clause 6?

Mr. Speaker, again I cannot say whether we are giving him a present or not. This matter is under investigation by the Trust Board and I cannot anticipate the position. The hon. member has raised a hypothetical legal point, but I say we must see what actually happens in practice and then judge the matter.

Mr. Chairman, I shall do my utmost to set out the attitude of my party to this clause in clear, straightforward and simple language so that this time the hon. the Minister will not become confused by the arguments we use. In the first place, this clause is quite unacceptable to us and under no foreseeable circumstances shall we be able to vote for the clause, for the principle it contains. Nevertheless, in accordance with the lesson on elementary procedure which the hon. member for Yeoville gave the hon. the Minister a few minutes ago, we have two amendments. I shall move one of them, and the hon. member for Yeoville the other. Either of these amendments would, in our opinion, make the clause slightly less objectionable and we offer them as part of our duty as the Opposition to try to improve bad legislation wherever we can. But even if the hon. the Minister decides to accept them, we shall still vote against the clause. I trust that is clear now. The hon. the Minister may argue, if he has such arguments available, that the amendments are undesirable in that they would weaken the clause or make it worse. He can say that if he likes, but he must not state that although the amendments effect an improvement, he is nevertheless going to reject them merely because we reject the clause.

[Inaudible.]

That is what the hon. the Minister has just done. It reminds me of the story of the two children where one told the other that he was not going to give him any sweets and the other in turn said that he was not going to give the first one any sweets either. In the hope that this is clear now, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I should like to motivate this amendment. In terms of clause 7(1)(d) the expenditure of money recovered during the cleaning-up operations of the State in terms of paragraph (c), is being ratified. However, we regard that as improper, since it is something that happened behind Parliament’s back. This money ended up in the hands of the former Department of Information in an irregular manner. Certain money has been recovered and that is a good thing, but evidently some of that money has already been spent again. Clause 7(1)(d) reads—

We should like to see such money being recovered, deposited in the State Revenue Account, and again appropriated properly in accordance with parliamentary procedure for purposes approved of by Parliament. That is the meaning of the amendment I have moved. I trust the hon. the Minister will give thorough consideration to accepting it even though he may adhere to the clause as a whole.

With regard to the clause as a whole, it is not necessary to add very much to what was said during the Second Reading debate and during many other earlier debates. This clause confers on the responsible Minister the right to ratify any contract concluded or purporting to have been concluded by or on behalf of the former Department of Information. The principle applicable to the contract is the same as that applicable to the expenditure. There are probably many examples one could think of, but one is sufficient and that is one which has been debated in the House many times and to which we on this side of the House have often referred but to which there has never been a satisfactory reply. I am referring to the selling of The Citizen. Time and again we asked how it could happen that that liability which, according to the Erasmus report, amounted to R13 million at the end of 1977 and which, according to the Pretorius Committee, amounted to R16 million at the end of 1978, could have vanished somewhere before the newspaper was sold. We have obtained no satisfaction at all with regard to the question of whether the affairs of The Citizen were in order when it was sold, and what was the extent of those great liabilities referred to in the reports made available to us, yet we are being expected to confer an all embracing right upon the responsible Minister to ratify contracts purporting to have been concluded. We are not prepared to do so, and we shall therefore vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am now even more confused by what the hon. members of the official Opposition have said. What is the official Opposition envisaging now? The hon. member for Yeoville said we should add a proviso to clause 7(1)(d), but the hon. member for Parktown, again, said we should delete it. One of them wishes to add something and the other says we should delete the lot.

[Inaudible.]

What are we doing now? That is precisely what is happening here. Evidently the hon. member for Rondebosch differs …

I have not said anything yet.

It does not matter what he said. It is on record, after all. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rondebosch should first go and have a look at the logic in his speech of last night and try and put that right. Then he can tell me whether the wording of this paragraph does not mean what it says. The hon. member for Yeoville will get an opportunity to speak. He never misses an opportunity. The hon. member for Rondebosch need therefore not be concerned at all. The hon. member for Yeoville will definitely want to speak. I should like to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that the facts are stated in the Bill. The hon. member said there should be an insertion in clause 7(1)(d). But the hon. member for Parktown says we should delete the whole Bill. That is the point. The amendments the Opposition wish to move are the most surprising aspect of their entire view on this Bill.

We are seeking here to ratify the very valuable cleaning-up work by the Pretorius Committee which has already brought back millions of rands to the Exchequer. They had to incur certain expenses to continue their extremely productive work. The Opposition is now refusing to sanction even that. That is the party that says we should do some cleaning up. The entire debate has revolved around that. This money has to be recovered, they say, and the most effective action in this regard has been that of the Pretorius Committee over several months. During this process they had to incur certain expenses and comply with certain contracts. We are requesting that this be ratified. The Opposition is refusing to do even that.

I think the Opposition should take a look again at what they are doing. It is very easy for a person to say that he refuses to approve of something. But what are the implications? Is it in the interests of the State and of our country that this should be done with this subsection? While the projects of the former Department of Information were being investigated, the hon. the Prime Minister personally appointed a committee last year. Of necessity, it had to incur certain expenses. For this purpose the committee used part of the funds from the project. These were limited funds. The committee was obliged to take this step because it first had to unravel all transactions. Where it was in the interests of the State to do so, existing obligations had to be honoured. The only means available were the funds obtained as described in clause 7(1)(c). With effect from the current financial year, the normal financing procedures will be followed. The clause is therefore necessary to ratify the expenditure of the Pretorius Committee. That is what clause 7 entails.

Mr. Chairman, we have said at Second Reading that this clause is totally unacceptable to us. I am most surprised that the hon. the Minister attempts to persuade this House that this clause is necessary to help the Pretorius Committee to recover the money. We believe that the clause is in fact seeking to authorize things that have happened in the past with which we in these benches do not agree at all. Clause 7(1)(c) says that—

After that date The Citizen was sold to Perskor at a price which, it would appear, could have been bettered by other newspaper groups. Whether it could have or not is not important, however, because apparently those other groups were not given the opportunity to participate in the proceedings to purchase The Citizen newspaper. Is this in the best interests of the State? Is it not possible that State funds have been reduced by that very action, and what is the reason for that action? Why was this done? Why is the Government now asking validation from the House? The reason is that, having founded The Citizen as a NP-supporting newspaper, it did not want it to get out of the hands of an NP-supporting group. However the hon. the Minister or the official Opposition might attempt to amend this clause, we in these benches will most certainly vote against it, though we have nothing specific against the amendments they propose.

Mr. Chairman, in the final report of the Erasmus Commission there is the story of a man riding a bicycle and being knocked over by a truck. It seems to me that the hon. gentleman who was riding that bicycle is still suffering a little from concussion, because he does not appear to have quite recovered from the blow. With great respect, what he said a little earlier about the amendments can only be due to concussion and nothing else. I therefore move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I should like to explain to the House, and particularly to the hon. the Minister, what this amendment means. The amendment does not only refer to the provisions in paragraph (d), but also to those in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). If the hon. the Minister knows the rules of this House, he will also know that if, in any amendment, a paragraph such as paragraph (d) is deleted, the said paragraph would disappear, leaving only paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) to be dealt with. I hope the hon. the Minister understands that, because those are the rules of this House.

It is probably different in the Other Place.

The hon. member for Houghton charitably says it is probably different in the Other Place, but I know that it is not. The same rules apply in the Other Place. Therefore, with great respect to the hon. the Minister, I believe that he is trying to score a debating point. It is a question of one of those dark cats in a dark room on a dark bicycle without wheels. That is really all it is about. [Interjections.] I do not believe that this kind of red herring should be allowed in this debate. [Interjections.]

Order! If there is one man in this House who needs no help, it is the hon. member for Yeoville.

Thank you, Sir. It is the dark cat, however, that needs help. That is the problem. [Interjections.]

Yes, and you are the mouse.

Better a mouse than a rat!

I now wish to deal specifically with clause 7 and give the hon. the Minister very clear reasons why we cannot vote for this clause at all. In the first place we are being asked to ratify “any settlement negotiated by or on behalf of the State after 1 July 1978”. I do not wish to repeat the whole story about The Citizen, even though it is relevant, but we are not even told what the settlements are that we are being asked to ratify.

A blank cheque.

I do not give a blank cheque to anybody, and least of all do I give a blank cheque in a dark room when I cannot even see the cheque. Here I am being asked to ratify settlements, while the hon. the Minister has, as yet, not given us one settlement that he wants us to ratify. In other words, he is saying that whatever has been done we have to agree to, whether they have told us about it or not. What kind of an approach to Parliament is that?

He will give it to you in code.

I do not even have it in code. I have nothing at all, and yet I am being asked, on behalf of the taxpayers of South Africa, to exercise my vote, as every hon. member of the House is being asked to exercise his vote, to ratify settlements whose details are not being given to us. The clause states further—

When the hon. the Minister asks for this kind of retrospective validation, he has a duty to say: “This is what we have done; we account for it and ask you to validate it.” What has, however, happened in this case is that nobody has told us what we are asked to validate; nobody has told us in any detail what we are asked to ratify; and nobody has told us of the disposal of the assets or of the settlement. We are given some figures, but we do not know how they are arrived at and how they are constituted. We do not know what is involved.

I believe that no self-respecting legislature gives this kind of power without being told the facts. I defy the hon. the Minister to give me one example where he as the managing director of a board could go to the board and say: “I have done a whole lot of things; I am not telling you what I have done, but I ask you to ratify everything I have done”. I think that any board which would do that would eventually find itself being prosecuted for criminal negligence. Yet we are being asked today to ratify things and approve of things without the hon. the Minister taking us into his confidence on what we are being asked to ratify and approve.

I moved an amendment to the clause, but apparently the hon. the Minister does not want to accept that either. All the amendment in effect says is: “Once a year come to Parliament and tell us what you have done. Even if you do not tell us in advance what you are going to do, even if you do not intend to tell us now, will you not submit to Parliament once a year a report in which you tell us what contracts you have ratified, what settlements you have negotiated and what assets you have disposed of?” If that is an unreasonable request, I really do not know. With great respect, Sir, we are surely entitled, in dealing with the taxpayers’ money, to know what has happened to it. Yet, in the circumstances we are certainly not being told that.

Mr. Chairman, a peculiar thing is happening here today. The hon. members of the Opposition are saying that they want to amend the clause and that after they have amended it, they are still going to vote against it. It amounts to this, that when one wants to sell someone an article, he tells one that he does not like the article in its present form and requests that certain changes be effected, and then adds that after those changes have been effected, he is still not going to buy it. How ridiculous can one become!

Only a fool could draw such an analogy.

When the hon. members quote the clause—they never start at the beginning. They always point out that any contract may be ratified, whereas it is stated very clearly in the clause that subject to the provisions of section 8—

The hon. members prefer not to refer to the first part. They have already accepted the operation of the State Trust Board. I think they are trying to create a completely erroneous image. In fact, the amendments they have moved, make this entire matter a farce.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to the point the hon. member for Yeoville made when he talked about black cats, bicycles and so on. What he did not say was …

It is better to be on a tricycle.

The hon. member must listen. What the hon. member for Yeoville did not say was that with reference to the incident of the bicycle the report went on to say (para. 13.21, page 53)—

On the wrong side of the road.

I think the commission showed rare insight into what we are dealing with.

On which side of the road did you continue?

I must have been on the right side, because I am still here. I want to say …

[Inaudible.]

I am not talking to that hon. member. [Interjections.]

Order!

The future ratification of the contracts in terms of clause 7(1)(a) will be done by the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the recommendation of the State Trust Board. In terms of section 10 of the State Trust Board Act it would be proper for the board to report such ratifications to the Minister who, in terms of the Act, shall table such report provided the public interest or State security is not prejudiced. That is perfectly clear.

Some of the settlements negotiated and the disposal of assets or expenditure validated in terms of subsection (l)(b), (c) and (d) are in respect of sensitive projects and it would not be in the public interest simply to disclose the details willy-nilly. On this point I should like to suggest to the hon. member for Yeoville that he might at some time care to approach the Minister concerned to see whether he is able to obtain any information on a personal basis. It should be borne in mind that we are dealing with highly sensitive things. I can certainly imagine that some of these settlements and assets will also be dealt with further by the State Trust Board and will eventually be reported on by that board.

*The Citizen has been mentioned, and with regard to that I should like just to state that I think that as far as The Citizen is concerned, the State has acted with extreme responsibility. I should like to praise the Pretorius Committee, inter alia, for what it has done. One of the very first projects to which the committee devoted attention, was the so-called Citizen project. On the basis of what the committee had ascertained, namely that the newspaper was being published at a monthly loss—it was a fairly substantial loss—it was decided to dispose of the newspaper immediately. The fact that the newspaper was not sold and summarily closed down, rests on the consideration that the latter step would have entailed the cancellation of a great many existing contracts, with substantial consequential losses. The losses to the State would have amounted to several million rands. That is something that should be kept in mind; surely we cannot leave that out of the reckoning.

The Government decided on this step knowing full well that empowering legislation would be necessary. It is that very legislation which is now under consideration. I say again that the Government went to a great deal of trouble to go into all the implications of the Citizen project in order to decide which way of dealing with the newspaper would be in the best interests of the State. We had nothing to do with it; we never knew about it until the end of September last year. [Interjections.] It is not necessary to argue about that now; the Erasmus Commission obtained evidence about that under oath, and that was their finding time and again.

I say that through the Pretorius Committee and others, that a very thorough study was made of how the situation should be handled in the best interests of the State. There were monthly deficits and there were contacts which, if the matter had been incorrectly handled, could have cost the State millions of rands. The particular decision was therefore made and having had the facts before me, I am absolutely convinced that the Government acted in the best interests of the State here. That is all I can say about The Citizen at the moment.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know housing for urban Blacks, as well as for other population communities, is financed from the National Housing Fund. Primarily as a result of policy considerations—that I need not go into now because they are history—Black housing was not provided on the same basis as housing for Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics before 1 April this year. Advances from the Housing Fund for the execution of housing schemes for Blacks were allocated only at an economic interest rate, while subsidized interest rates were applicable to the housing of certain lower income cadres of the other population groups. However, housing assistance for Blacks was obtained from various other sources, for example liquor and sorghum beer profits.

A Government resolution that housing shall, from 1 April 1979 be provided on the same basis as the other population groups from the Housing Fund, has meant that new rented dwellings for Blacks with an income of up to R150 per month may in future be provided with money at 1% interest per annum. For the R150 to R250 per month income group, new dwellings will be provided at a rental based on the differential interest rate of 3½% interest per annum. Standards of dwellings and services will in future also be in keeping with those that apply to the other groups, due regard being had of course for the ability of the occupants in question to pay for them. Furthermore it will also be possible to provide community facilities on the same basis in Black residential areas as in the residential areas of the other communities.

In terms of the Housing Act, as it applies at present, the National Housing Commission considers applications for advances by local authorities for the execution of housing schemes for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, while the Black Housing Board considers applications from Administration Boards in respect of housing for Blacks in the urban areas.

The question therefore, arose whether, in view of the elimination of the differences in the basis on which dwellings for Blacks and other communities are being provided, there was any need for the Black Housing Board to remain in existence. I consulted the Minister of Co-operation and Development in this regard and he agrees that the need for the Black Housing Board to exist has now disappeared because the National Housing Commission is able, and in view of what I have just said, ought to deal with applications for the approval of housing schemes for Blacks as well, because this will lead to greater efficiency and uniformity, which will be in the interests of everyone, in particular those of the Black communities.

A member of the Coloured community and of the Indian community, are already serving on the National Housing Commission where they have a full say in the field of national housing and participate in the decision-making processes in this regard.

If the proposals in this Bill with regard to the abolition of the Black Housing Board are accepted, which will entail that the National Housing Commission will deal with Black housing as well, it will, in my opinion, be desirable to have a member of the Black community serving on the commission as well. Apart from that, owing to the special interests that Administration Boards have in the matter, the Minister of Co-operation and Development and I think that provision should be made for the appointment of another additional member to the commission so that the Administration Boards can also have representation on it. The membership of the National Housing Commission will, therefore, have to be increased by two for this purpose.

The Bill before this House seeks to give effect to the premises that I have tried to outline here. The proposals are, in my opinion, in the interests of better administration and also of better race relations, and I trust that they will meet with general support.

As will be noticed, we envisage putting this legislation into effect on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. The reason for this is that the terms of office of members of the Black Housing Board have not yet expired and that a date for the earlier termination of their terms of office will have to be negotiated with them, after which the legislation will be put into effect. No problems are foreseen in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, the crux of this Bill, as I see it, is contained in clauses 2 and 4, in which it is being proposed that the Black Housing Board be abolished and that two members be designated by the Minister of Co-operation and Development.

The rest is consequential.

Precisely. Consequently they are the two cardinal clauses in the Bill, as I understand it. Of course I welcome the two provisions. I have repeatedly said that one of the fundamental problems that one has with housing in South Africa in general, is that there are various bodies and departments engaged in various types and categories of housing, so that it is extremely difficult to obtain an overall picture of the housing requirements. One of the problems to which I have constantly referred, is in fact related to the entire question of Black housing and year after year during the discussion of the Vote of the hon. the Minister the entire question of housing is discussed, but we cannot get to grips with the entire question of the requirements, scope, etc., of Black housing. In fact, if I am not mistaken, this year is the first time that one was able to form something of a picture in this regard as a result of the information documents which the hon. the Minister made available to us and for which I consequently expressed my gratitude during the discussion of his Vote.

The Black Housing Board’s function, as indicated by the hon. the Minister, was to consider loan applications for Black housing in the so-called White areas. This function is now being taken over by the National Housing Commission and it would seem that it will now be the responsibility of the two members that are still to be designated by the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development to draw the commission’s attention to problems with regard to Black housing. In this regard I want to say that I am particularly pleased that the hon. the Minister indicated that one of those members will be a member of the Black community with an intimate knowledge of the housing requirements of Blacks. The other member will be an official of one of the Administration Boards. To a large extent one can understand this because it was in fact the Administration Boards that informed the Black Housing Board in the past of the housing requirements of the various Black communities that fell under the jurisdiction of the Administration Boards. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that as a result of the work being done in this regard by the Cabinet Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. the Minister of Cooperation and Development, a considerable number of changes could take place with regard to who is going to be involved in Black housing and with regard to what the nature and scope of the provision of Black housing will be.

There is another reason why I welcome this measure. In the past I constantly tried to indicate in the debates on the Vote of the hon. the Minister that the question of Black housing was our central problem in South Africa. It was always difficult, because as soon as I raised these matters, the reaction was that these matters did not really fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Community Development, but under other departments. Consequently one could never really get a discussion in this regard started.

In this regard I consequently want to ask the hon. the Minister whether we can now look forward to the department giving us a comprehensive picture every year of the nature and scope of the problems and the shortage of Black housing in the so-called White areas, when it has to report on its activities by way of the Housing Commission report. Only then will we really be able to conduct a fruitful debate in this regard.

If one examines the information document on Black housing that the hon. the Minister made available to us this year, one observes that it states that there was a shortage of 126 000 family units and a shortage of 120 000 beds for single persons in April 1979. According to the information document it is being planned to provide 135 000 single beds and 69 800 family units between 1 April 1978 and 31 March 1983. If one makes a calculation on the basis of this forecast, taking into account the number of family units being planned for the next five years, one sees that there will still be a shortage of 57 000 family units in five years’ time in any case. What is not being taken into account, is the influx of people to the urban areas and, of course, the influx of people to the rural areas as well.

There is already a shortage of Black housing in the so-called urban areas. In spite of the building programme of the Government there is still going to be a shortage of approximately 57 000 family units in five years’ time. Apart from that the document states that approximately 89% of the funds for Black housing was obtained directly from the National Housing Fund. This indicates the relatively small amount contributed by the private sector in this regard. This also indicates that an exceptional burden rests on the State with regard to the provision of this housing. The department said that the hon. the Minister foresaw that the housing requirements of Whites, Coloureds and Indians could be met over a period of five years, but the same could not be said in respect of Black housing. This simply emphasizes once again the importance of the problem facing us. We should bear in mind that we are referring to Black housing in the so-called White areas and not necessarily to Black housing in the rural areas or in the homeland areas. The housing shortage in the urban areas could create tremendous problems over the long term as well. Therefore, if one wants to get an overall picture of the real need for Black housing, one should also take those areas into account. I think hon. members will agree with me that there is a special interdependence with regard to housing requirements in the cities and in the rural and homeland areas. I am merely mentioning this to emphasize what new responsibilities the National Housing Commission is now imposing upon itself. Six members served on the old urban Black Housing Board. Here two members are now being appointed to the Housing Commission and they have to report on the housing requirements of all the areas situated outside the homelands. I can understand that they will be provided with information by the various Administration Boards.

I have no problem in supporting this Bill. In the past I have often and repeatedly advocated that one body should accept responsibility for housing so that we can compare the requirements of the various communities and determine where the money and funds should go.

Finally, I want to emphasize a point which, as the hon. the Minister knows, is a matter of deep concern to me. With regard to Black housing I am convinced that in by far the most cases the need for housing does not lie in economic and sub-economic categories. In my opinion, the need for Black housing entails emergency housing. I think this Housing Commission will have to give special attention to this division of housing. Last year, when we appointed the Housing Advisory Board and the Housing Policy Board here by means of legislation, I indicated at that stage already that we should appoint a board of experts to give specific attention to the whole question of emergency housing and low-income housing, for which provision is not being made at this stage through the Housing Advisory Board and the Policy Advisory Board. It is in this area that I believe new thinking should emerge, and we shall have to examine the housing problems of the Third World. To me at least this measure is a positive step in the right direction. Consequently we have no hesitation in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to react briefly to the speech made by the hon. member for Rondebosch and then explain the measure before this House further. The measure is geared to making home-ownership more accessible to the urban Black man. I do not want to go into the value of home-ownership as such, particularly with regard to the urban Black man, except to say that homeownership forms the basis of an orderly community. Home-ownership is a guarantee for internal peace and order and a point of departure to a higher standard of living. That is why this measure is the introduction to a special era, also with regard to the urban Black man outside the Black States.

I want to make it clear that changing circumstances have given rise to this measure. I think it is necessary for this House to take cognizance of what circumstances have changed, thus compelling the Government to introduce this measure. I just want to mention a few examples. Firstly, the standard of living of the urban Black man has risen tremendously. For that reason he must be provided with a better type of house in this new milieu of life. The Government has accepted the 99-year leasehold system. All these circumstances have given rise to this measure before the House today.

I must say that it was with gratitude that I took cognizance of the standpoint of the hon. member for Rondebosch that they support this measure. I want to deal with one other facet of this measure. What will it mean for the Black man in practice if this measure is passed? It means, firstly, that the urban Black person may now qualify for national housing. This means that 63%, according to income, of the urban Black people may qualify for sub-economic housing and 36% for economic housing. On the face of it would appear that the urban Black people, according to income, may all qualify for national housing, except for 1%. This is the figure according to the most recent data we have at our disposal. A mere 1% of the income of all urban Blacks exceeds R540, which means that those people do not qualify under the provisions of this measure. Furthermore this means that the urban Black community may now apply for community funds for community facilities within their schemes. With that they can have libraries and community centres built and equipped. In practice this measure also means that the urban Black community may lay claim to and apply for welfare housing. In my opinion this is a very important aspect, since the need for crèches, old-age homes, etc. may also be met now.

There is one other aspect I want to raise with regard to finance. According to the most recent information—here my figures and the figures of the hon. member for Rondebosch do not correspond—there is a shortage of 110 000 family units. I see the hon. member for Rondebosch is indicating where he got his information, but his figures are outdated. I managed to obtain new figures. The shortage of 110 000 family units does not, of course, make provision for migration and for natural increase. It is now being envisaged—and the department has accepted this—to work off the housing backlog with regard to urban Black people, at an estimated cost of R800 million, within 10 years. In my opinion this is a phenomenal achievement and deserves the support of all hon. members in this House. The Government accepts the responsibility that rests on its shoulders, but this does not remove the responsibility of employers, as far as this very important matter is concerned, to make their contributions as well by meeting the need for Black housing.

What the measure amounts to in essence is that the Government accepts the responsibility of providing the urban Black man with more housing of higher standards at lower interest rates. This is a measure that is, in my opinion, worthy of the support of everyone in this House, and consequently I gladly do so.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to comment on this Bill and give it the wholehearted support of the NRP. I am very pleased that the principle and the direction of this Bill is in line with the plea that I have lodged here in the House a number of times before. Only last year I made the plea to rationalize all housing and matters pertaining to housing in South Africa. Hon. members will no doubt remember that I pleaded for a single department of housing to control all South Africa’s housing matters, whether Black, Brown or White. Reading between the lines of this particular Bill, it seems that the direction in which it is pointing, is exactly this. I hope therefore that what this Bill has started, will end up in the whole housing dilemma that we have in this country being placed under one department.

In this regard I would like to pay the hon. the Minister of Community Development and his department a compliment in that their track record in regard to Coloured and Indian housing, and for that matter White housing as well, is particularly good. I think the achievements of the department have been exceptional, and I believe that bringing in Black housing too under this department is certainly going to assist providing housing in South Africa. I believe that their expertise should in a very short time be able to sort out the log-jam, the backlog, that Black housing has constituted for the last 10 years.

It is my hope that this department can now, and will in fact, become more deeply involved in Black housing and that eventually all housing matters will fall under one roof. I am now reading between the lines in the Bill, but I hope the hon. the Minister can achieve this some time in the future. I believe that this Bill is the first step in this direction.

The other side of the Bill relates to a problem we have always had, namely the availability of statistics and data. This problem can be solved by the hon. the Minister. The immediate priority, as I see it, is for the new Housing Commission to take stock of the entire housing situation in South Africa. I believe it is their duty to do this. Up till now the housing section of the old Department of Bantu Administration and Development did not know whether they were coming or going when it came to housing. I am not trying to belittle that former department—it is a dead department, its leadership has changed—but I think that under the new Housing Commission we can I get meaningful facts. Meaningful data and statistics and future projections on housing demands and shortages for Blacks were unavailable in the past, certainly to Opposition members. We believe that the new Housing Commission, as a result of the fact that their functions embrace all housing matters, housing for all ethnic groups, will be able to take stock and offer us meaningful debate, as the hon. member for Rondebosch has so clearly stated.

I wish to conclude by saying that we are very pleased to support the Bill and compliment the hon. the Minister on introducing it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to extend my thanks to the hon. members of the Opposition parties for supporting this measure. I am glad to note that they are as eager as we are that the machinery created to solve our housing problem in South Africa should be as efficient as possible and also streamlined to the highest degree. That is one of the purposes of the Bill. I am indeed grateful for their support.

Before I deal with the specific remarks of the two hon. members who spoke from the Opposition side, I should like to address a few words to the hon. member for Bellville.

*I want to thank him most sincerely for his contribution which testified to real research and an intimate knowledge of the subject. I can only endorse and confirm in full all the figures, facts and aspirations he mentioned. Now that we have reached the point where we can say with a degree of certainty that, provided nothing unforeseen happens, we shall have Coloured and Indian housing under control within three to five years, we can also say today with a large degree of certainty, once again provided nothing unforeseen happens, that we shall also be in a position to get Black housing under control over a period of perhaps ten years. This will be our aspiration, and I hope we shall succeed in it. The hon. member for Bellville indicated that, while this party is in office, housing for all the people of South Africa will be considered to be of the utmost importance, will receive attention and imaginative support from all Government persons and bodies. We honestly believe that the foundation of a happy, orderly, prosperous community is homeownership and in fact home-ownership in respect of dwellings that owners can occupy with pride. This is very important. I should like to give the assurance that this is the Government’s policy and that the Government is prepared to make sacrifices and also to ask people to make sacrifices to make the implementation of this policy possible.

†The hon. member for Rondebosch raised a point that is procedurally important. He expressed the hope that in future it will be possible under the Vote of the Minister of Community Development to discuss all aspects of housing. I want to agree immediately that that will be possible to a larger extent than in the past. However, I do not want misunderstandings to arise next year. I want to warn the hon. member that, whereas it will be the function of the National Housing Commission to provide funds, determine applicable standards and assist local authorities and administration boards, it will not be the function of the Department of Community Development to determine the needs of our Black people.

That will remain the function of the Department of Co-operation and Development. I want to warn the hon. member that next year he will have to debate in two stages. In the first part he will have to debate on the needs, and that he will have to do when the Vote of the Minister of Cooperation and Development is discussed. How those needs are to be satisfied is a question which he will have to debate when the Vote of the Minister of Community Development is considered.

That is not a very satisfactory state of affairs.

I think it constitutes a great step forward. In view of the rapport that exists between the two Ministers concerned and also between the responsible officials of the two departments, I think it ought to work very well indeed. At the moment my department certainly does not have the machinery, the knowledge and the manpower to determine the needs in respect of Black housing, but the Department of Co-operation and Development has been working on this problem for years. They have the machinery and the contacts and they are better equipped to determine those needs. I think it is truly their function to determine those needs. We shall, however, see how it works out in practice and we can perhaps later take the matter into reconsideration.

They have not been able to offer one statistics and data for the past 10 years.

No, that is not correct. In fact, that is a very negative attitude. Even in this short debate meaningful statistics and data were supplied by the hon. members for Rondebosch and Bellville. This proves that figures are available. I really cannot take the hon. member seriously when he adopts that kind of attitude. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Rondebosch spoke about emergency housing—“noodbehuising”. I want to concede immediately that the problem in the case of our Black people, differing as it does from that of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians, may demand special measures. It may be necessary that we shall have to find some type of housing which is simpler, cheaper and of a lower standard than housing for Whites, Coloureds and Indians at the moment. The policy of the Government will, however, remain to provide, as far as possible, in the RSA housing which merits the description of a “permanent home” for the people permanently in the RSA. That will remain the ideal and I hope I shall have the support of the hon. members in my efforts to achieve that goal.

I have no quarrel with that.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke about the rationalization of housing. I think he will appreciate that what we are doing at the moment is a step forward. We indicated last year that that was our aim when we introduced enabling legislation to create an advisory board on housing and a policy committee on housing. This, too, is a step in that direction. A lot will depend upon our experience. We shall have to approach this problem empirically to see how it develops. I want to assure the hon. member that the aim is—this he and I have in common—to have the best administration and the best machinery in order to cope with the housing needs of our people.

Thank you.

I want to repeat that I am most grateful for the support of hon. members and I understand that they will grant me all the remaining stages of the Bill. For that I express my thanks in anticipation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Before the Bill was read for the First Time, copies of the draft Bill and the explanatory notes were made available to certain hon. members on both sides of the House so as to enable them to study the contents.

The new format in which the Bill was presented last year proved to be a great success and it is again being submitted in the same form this year as will be the case in future. Like last year this enabled the Department of Customs and Excise to draft the Bill at a much earlier stage so that the proposed amendments to the text of the principal Act could be submitted to representative bodies of commerce and industry such as the Afrikaanse Handels-instituut, Assocom, FCI and SASAFAA for comments. Comments and proposals were received from these bodies and where practicable such proposals were incorporated in the Bill now before the House.

In terms of the existing definition of “manufacture”, in section 1 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, the Secretary for Customs and Excise may in his discretion only determine when the process of packing or measuring off of any excisable goods should be regarded as a dutiable operation. This limitation places a mandatory obligation upon the Secretary to levy excise duty on certain functions—particularly in the jewellery trade—which should not be regarded as dutiable operations.

In order to overcome this problem clause 1 of the Bill provides for a much wider discretion by the Secretary in determining whether a certain process or function should be regarded as a dutiable operation.

Since the advent of the general sales tax the Department of Customs and Excise has been collecting sales tax on imported goods at the time of entry for home consumption on behalf of the Department of Inland Revenue. Presently section 4(3) of the principal Act debars a Customs and Excise officer from divulging to the Secretary for Inland Revenue any information regarding sales tax which he may have acquired in the performance of his duties. Clause 2 rectifies this anomalous situation in that a Customs and Excise officer may, for the purposes of the Sales Tax Act, 1978, divulge information to the Secretary for Inland Revenue or to an officer designated by that Secretary.

Clause 3 provides for the State not to be held liable for any loss or damage sustained due to the wrong delivery of any goods from a State warehouse. As regards this provision I would like to mention that it is not the intention that the Department of Customs and Excise should be protected against wrongful delivery arising from gross carelessness or negligence. The provision is merely intended to absolve the State from liability when goods are released to the importer in good faith against valid documentation and a party with an interest, like a bank, claims title thereto and institutes a claim against the Department of Customs and Excise.

Mr. Speaker, clause 4(a) requires no clarification except to mention that the purpose referred to is whether the goods concerned are being entered for the purpose of payment of duty, warehousing, etc. I will deal with clause 4(b) together with clause 6, but first I would like to explain clause 5. This clause is a protective measure as far as importers are concerned. Presently, where an importer’s goods are conveyed at his risk in all respects, the carrier of the goods is not liable for the duty even where the goods are lost after having been placed in a transit shed under the control of the carrier. This in effect means that the importer will be liable for the duty on such lost goods even though they were still under the control of the carrier. Clause 5(a) provides for the carrier to be liable for the duty under the aforementioned circumstances. The proposed amendment embodied in clause 5(b) is of a technical nature and will enable the Department of Customs and Excise to act more effectively in cases of tax evasion. It is well known that South Africa is a member of the Customs Cooperation Council and has for tariff classification purposes given legal status to the explanatory notes to the nomenclature issued by that council. One of the council’s principles relating to tariff classification is that a member country’s customs administration must give binding tariff classifications. It has for some time been considered that sections 2 and 3 of the principal Act provided sufficient authority for any tariff classification by the Secretary for Customs and Excise to be considered binding. I may add that this was apparently also the opinion of some of the representatives of organized trade and industry who commented on this proposed amendment to the principal Act. In a court case the judge ruled as follows regarding the provisions of section 2 of the principal Act—

As regards the provisions of section 3(2) of the Customs and Excise Act, I may mention that legal opinion was obtained, and it was evident that this section equally does not confer the right upon the Secretary for Customs and Excise to make binding tariff classifications. The effect of this situation is that in terms of section 47(1) of the Act importers are in the position where they will be liable for the payment of the correct duties for as long as 30 years after the duty became payable as debts to the State mature after 30 years. Obviously this places not only the Department of Customs and Excise, but also importers, in a very onerous situation.

The proposed amendment of section 47 of the principal Act, embodied in clause 6, will, firstly, enable the Secretary to make binding tariff determinations. Secondly, in cases where a determination has not been made, importers’ liabilities for the payment of the correct duties will lapse after two years instead of 30 years. Thirdly, it provides for a tariff determination to be published in the Gazette by the Secretary within 90 days from the date of such determination. In view of this fact and the fact that importers will be in possession of binding determinations, it follows that importers will be liable for the payment of the correct duties with effect from the date of such determinations. In cases of mala fides, liability for the payment of the correct duty can obviously not be limited. The fact that the Secretary may make binding tariff determinations in no way detracts from the right of importers to appeal against such determinations, and specific provision is made in this respect. Furthermore, the Secretary must be in a position to amend a determination, even with retrospective effect. It must be accepted that situations may arise where a perfectly valid determination was made, based on the information available at that time, and that in the light of new information which came to light at a later stage, it was found that the original determination should be reviewed. If there is no provision for the Secretary to amend an original determination under these circumstances, the situation may arise where the lack of such a provision is to the detriment of the importer in that he might have been paying duty at a higher rate and that he could have been granted a refund of the duty overpaid had such a provision existed.

This is the whole purpose of this provision for the retroactive review of a determination by the Secretary. It is not intended that this particular provision be applied to the detriment of importers. The purpose most definitely is a benevolent application in the interest of importers.

This is a new legislation and where interpretative problems may arise which have merit, I shall not object to the Secretary for Customs and Excise solving the particular problem administratively until such time as it can be set right in the following year’s amendment Bill.

I may mention at this stage that the hon. the Minister of Finance personally interviewed representatives from the S.A. Shipping and Forwarding Agents’ Association, who are, of course, intimately affected by the provisions of clause 6. They have held in-depth discussions and the hon. the Minister has listened to their points of view. He also explained to them his viewpoints and the reasons for the proposed provisions.

The provisions of clause 6 are very comprehensive, and I do not want to take up too much time in discussing them in too much detail. I should, however, like to mention that provision is also made for the Secretary to publish tariff determinations in the Government Gazette. In view of the amount of preparatory work involved, it is proposed that the provisions of clause 6 come into operation on 1 October 1979.

I undertook to deal with clause 4(b) together with clause 6. Clause 4(b) provides for a person importing goods to furnish information regarding the tariff classification of the goods concerned as the Secretary may require. Where an importer has obtained a tariff determination, it is important that he should provide the necessary information so as to eliminate any unnecessary delays in clearing the goods. As from 1 October 1979 importers will also be able to refer to the particular Government Gazette in which a determination has been published.

*The comprehensive computerization project which the Department of Customs and Excise is undertaking, necessitates the value of imported goods being expressed in figures to the nearest rand. Clause 7 makes particular provision for this.

The proposed amendment of section 66 of the Customs and Excise Act as contained in clause 8, eliminates obscurities in the existing provisions with regard to the place of export and the expenditure and costs that have to be taken into account in the definition of the normal price of imported goods.

As far as clause 10 is concerned, I should like to explain paragraphs (a) and (b) further. The provisions as contained in clause 10(a) are nothing new to the Department of Customs and Excise or to the petroleum industry. In fact, the provisions of the clause give substance to a practice that has been followed since 1959.

As far as paragraph (b) is concerned, I should like to mention that it happens virtually every year that rebate provisions have to be formulated to assist manufacturers in cases where they have cleared goods with rebate on duty while such goods could in fact not be cleared in terms of the rebate provision. Up to the present this problem has been solved by including it with retrospective effect in the amending Bill of the particular year. Because it is in the interests of manufacturers to rectify matters of this nature as quickly as possible, I propose that the hon. the Minister of Finance be placed in the position to implement the rebate provisions involved by way of notice in the Government Gazette with retrospective effect at the time of the formulation of such rebate provisions, where he deems this to be in the public interest.

While I am dealing with the question of retrospective effect, I want to refer again to clause 6 at this stage in order to stress the purpose of the proposed provisions clearly. When one looks at the provisions of clause 6 and clause 10(b), it is clear that their whole purpose is to place the Minister and the Secretary for Customs and Excise in a position to assist importers in certain specific circumstances. I am referring here in particular to the repayment of duty in circumstances for which provision is not normally made in the principal Act. The proof that this is the aim we have in mind is contained in clause 13, in which no fewer than five cases of this nature are dealt with. The same phenomenon appeared in the amending Acts of previous years. I want therefore to stress once again that the purpose of these proposed provisions is to render assistance and not to create difficulties, as some persons and bodies interpret it. I trust that hon. members will also view it in this light.

Clause 12 deals with the responsibility of agents who act on behalf of, for instance, importers, exporters, licence-holders and manufacturers. I want to point out at the outset that objections were lodged to the proposed provisions. Basically the objections were in effect that an agent acted by order of his principal and that, instead of extending the agent’s liability it should rather be restricted.

The factual position is, however, that “importer”, as defined in section 1(1) of the Customs and Excise Act also includes a person who acts on behalf of the importer. As the agent receives the rights of the importer in terms of the principal Act, the agent is at present in the position of being able to decide on an arbitrary basis which of the liabilities of the importer he wants to meet. This situation is undesirable because in practice it is the agent who renders the expert service. The agent should therefore not be in the position where he can shirk responsibility for his actions in a specific case.

I should like to point out that in terms of the existing provisions of section 99(1) of the Customs and Excise Act, an agent who acts on behalf of a master, pilot or container operator in a particular case, is liable for fulfilling all the obligations that have been imposed on the particular master, pilot or container operator. In view of this I cannot see why the agent who acts on behalf of an importer should in any way be placed in the position where he can decide which liabilities he wants to accept and which he does not want to accept.

The Customs Co-operation Council has been giving attention to the question of the liability of third parties for quite some time, and a document with the title “Draft Annex Concerning the Relationship Between Customs Authorities and Third Parties” was sent to member countries last year for their consideration. The Annex was accepted unanimously by all the member countries on 16 May of this year during the session of the Council in Australia. In this regard I should like to quote the following from the Annex for the information of hon. members—

That is exactly what is being provided for as far as third parties are concerned. During the interview to which I have already referred, the provisions of this clause were also discussed thoroughly, and although I agree that only a small percentage of the agents are not always prepared to fulfil their responsibilities towards their clients, this clause is of particular importance. For the vast majority of agents who realize what their responsibilities are, the proposed provision should create no problems.

Besides the ratification of the amendments which were made before 2 February 1979 in respect of Schedules 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the principal Act, provision is also being made in clause 13, inter alia, for amending the scales of customs and excise duty, as well as the surcharge which was promulgated on 29 March 1979.

Mr. Speaker, may I start off by wishing the hon. the Deputy Minister well in his new portfolio. He and I have actually walked a fairly long road together. At times we have walked a fairly rough road, but at other times we have had quite a pleasant and friendly walk. In view of my particular function in the Opposition, and now his particular job, I hope that that road will be smooth for both of us. For reasons of old-time friendship, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that, despite the fact that we are going to oppose this measure, I intend to give him very easy and light treatment on this occasion. However, he must not think that it is an unlimited precedent for the future. It is merely being done in the spirit of his new appointment and the good wishes that I should like to convey to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Just to get the hon. the Deputy Minister into the picture right away, I shall be moving as an amendment—

I am indicating that to the hon. the Deputy Minister now because there are two fundamental issues we have difficulties with in this measure. Firstly we do not like retrospective legislation, and there are a number of retrospective provisions in this Bill. Secondly, there are some fundamental concepts in law which one should accept and only depart from in very exceptional circumstances. One of these concepts, enshrined in our law, is that a principal is liable for the acts of his agent. However, the exact reverse is not the case. An agent is not liable for the acts of his principal unless he himself has perpetrated those acts. Those are basic common-law principles known not only to any lawyer but also to even the most elementary students of mercantile law. These are two fundamental problems that we have with this legislation. In a moment I shall come back to them in more detail.

Secondly the Bill seeks to obtain approval for a whole series of Government notices imposed upon the community during the intervening years. What I find fascinating— and the hon. the Deputy Minister will forgive me because it is not really his responsibility that this has happened—is that the attitude of the Government is clearly displayed in two simple determinations. On the one hand the duty on champagne is being decreased, while on the other hand the duty on washing machines is being increased. [Interjections.] To my mind that demonstrates the approach of the Government to these problems. For those who live in a champagne world, champagne must be cheaper, but the working people, the ordinary members of the public who have to do their own washing, have a penalty imposed on them. [Interjections.] I find that remarkable.

Let me go further. Can you believe, Mr. Speaker, that while they are decreasing the duty on champagne, they are increasing the duty on the geometry instruments that children at school have to buy. Can you believe, Sir, that that could be the approach of a Government that has the interests of the working people at heart. I do not think you can believe that they would do such terrible things, Sir.

Mr. Speaker is shocked.

There is, however, perhaps an appropriate concession. The Government has doubled the duty free amount on unsolicited gifts. I wonder why that idea struck them. Even doubling this amount from R10 to R20, however, does not really make it a very meaningful contribution, and perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister could look at that again in due course. Those are some of the specific provisions in regard to the ratification of duties, but we do not in principle—I do not wish to steal the hon. member for Mooi River’s thunder, seeing as he has a few amendments on the Order Paper —want the duty increased on those items that are basic essentials of life, those items that are necessary for the ordinary man to have a reasonable standard of living. On the contrary, we want to see them decreased. It is altogether another matter, however, when it comes to luxuries. We believe that in the light of South Africa’s economic position more needs to be done to reduce the cost of living of the man in the street, and something can be done in terms of the legislation which the hon. the Deputy Minister is now piloting through this House.

I want to deal with the other provisions of the legislation in the same order as did the hon. the Deputy Minister, because perhaps it would be convenient to do so. In the first place I want to refer to the provision in clause 1 which deals with the definition of “manufacture”. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether that should not be—he can perhaps consider it—extended further so as to include certain types of reconditioning which do not appear to be covered in this particular provision at present, because that would allow the jewellery trade, in particular, to adopt a more realistic approach. We have no quarrel, however, with the general proposal contained in clause 1 of the Bill.

I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister made out a good case for the provision in clause 2 that information relating to sales duty should be conveyed to the Receiver of Revenue. Could I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to look again at the proposed new section 4(3)(c) and to make quite sure—and give us the assurance—that the information to be conveyed will only be information for the purposes of the Sales Tax Act, in other words that the secrecy provisions in respect of other matters concerning the Secretary for Inland Revenue will remain. I think the wording of this clause is somewhat obscure, because it says that no officer may convey information: “Except … to the Secretary for Inland Revenue or any officer of the Department of Inland Revenue designated by that Secretary, for the purposes of the Sales Tax Act …” That may refer to the officer designated for the purposes of the Sales Tax Act and not the information designated for the purposes of the Sales Tax Act. I would welcome it—and I certainly think the commercial community would as well—if the hon. the Deputy Minister could, in replying to this debate, assure us that the intention here is only to convey information which is relevant for sales tax administration by the Secretary for Inland Revenue and that reference is not being made to the general conveyance of information.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said that as far as the department was concerned it was not the intention, in terms of clause 3, to offer protection against wrongful delivery arising from gross carelessness or negligence, the intention merely being to absolve parties from liability when goods are released to the importer in good faith, against valid documentation, and a party such as a bank institutes a claim because of whatever right they thought they had to the goods. This is very nice, and I have no quarrel with that at all. The only problem I have with what the hon. the Deputy Minister said is that that is not what the Bill says. The Bill before us goes very much further, stating—

The very words the hon. the Minister used— and he will find them in his speech—were to the effect that he did not want to be protected against wrong delivery, certainly not where it was the result of carelessness or negligence. The Bill itself, however, says he is in fact protected against wrong delivery. Here we are again in the realm we seem to be getting into in regard to customs legislation: A lot of it depends entirely on how it is applied by the department. It is not a question of what one’s rights are in terms of the Bill, but it is a question of having to rely on a benevolent interpretation by the head of the department and his officials. Fortunately the present head of the department does have a realistic and fair approach to these matters, but one cannot legislate on the basis of a good head of a department and good officials, because one has to legislate to create certainty in the law. In my view the hon. the Minister should consider this and amend this provision to convey what he said in his speech, because while I have no quarrel with what he said in his speech, I do have the difficulty that the actual clause is wider than he himself said.

With clause 4 I have no problem, nor do I want to delay the House on clause 5. The only issue that arises in regard to clause 5 relates to the proposed new subsection (8) to be found on page 6 of the Bill. A problem may arise there in respect of a purchaser who has not yet obtained delivery of goods. I think that a problem can arise with the wording of that proposed subsection, but I think it is a relatively minor problem and I do not want to dwell on it unduly.

Then we come to what I consider to be one of the crucial clauses, namely clause 6, which amends section 47 of the principal Act. Here again we find ourselves in a most remarkable situation. The hon. the Deputy Minister made it very clear that he is not really legislating in the manner set out in the Bill. He does not really want all these powers. What he really wants is to be able to waive or reduce duties and to deal with fraudulent entries. He really does not want all these powers, but he is taking them all. He is giving himself powers which, I believe, go way beyond what is required in the circumstances or what is desirable. In this particular case we have the unfortunate situation that the powers that are given can be retrospectively applied. In our view, with great respect, this kind of retroactivity is not something of which we can approve. Certainly, we, the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. the Minister and the department know that the S.A. Shipping and Forwarding Association is in fact very much against the whole provision as we have it here, both because of its retrospectivity and because it goes far too wide. Let me give the hon. the Deputy Minister an example. The situation can arise that an improper bases his whole manufacturing process, his selling process and everything else on the costs as they have been stipulated, only to find suddenly that retrospectively it has all changed, as a result of which his whole financial position changes. The answer the hon. the Deputy Minister will give is that that is not the intention; that the intention is to help the importers and not to hamper them. My difficulty with that is that, if one wants to help a man, why not legislate in such a way that he can see that he is being helped? Why take powers that go far beyond what is necessary to apply and implement something which to my mind is not appropriate in the circumstances? As we see it, we do not believe we can support the provisions of clause 6 because, as I have said, firstly they are far too wide, and secondly, they are made retrospective. Let me quote what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in this respect—

That is perfectly correct. The reverse situation could, however, also apply and it would not be applied in order to help the importer; it could in fact completely knock his cost structure on the head and there could be very serious consequences for business.

Here again—I want to stress it—we are relying upon the identity of the Secretary and the method of the application of the law. I have no difficulty with this Secretary. On the contrary, this Secretary is one who consults very broadly and I think in the application of what he does, he acts very fairly and very properly. I cannot, however, agree to legislation merely because we happen to have a good Secretary. I cannot guarantee who will be here in 25 years’ time. I hope that Secretary will be just as good. With respect, this is not the way in which to legislate.

I skip the following clauses and come to clause 10. Here again we get a provision in regard to retrospectivity—

The words “in the public interest” we have been debating for the last six months and they constitute a term I am getting a little afraid of because it can have so many meanings—

I am afraid of retrospective provisions and I am afraid that retrospective provisions intended to do good, sometimes in the hands of people can end up doing the opposite. Therefore one is a little afraid of them.

I now come to what I think is the major problem with this piece of legislation and that is the amendment to section 99. What is fascinating here is that the hon. the Deputy Minister decided that he was going to quote from what the situation was in regard to the Draft Annex Concerning the Relationship Between Customs Authorities and Third Parties, which was dealt with during a sitting of the council in Australia. It says—

What is fascinating is that the law in Australia or in the other countries is not the same as it is here because the Australian Customs Act places on the agent the liability for penalties and does not apply that same responsibility for duties and charges which our Act seeks to do. This very wording the hon. the Deputy Minister quoted in regard to this particular matter supports that. They are dealing there with penalties and not with the whole ambit of responsibility which is imposed upon the agent in our community. Therefore to draw such a comparison between that document and what the reality of the position is seems to my mind not to be a correct one since the Australian position is quite different and the actual wording of the document he quoted makes it quite clear that the convention was not dealing with the whole broad aspect of all the matters in respect of which the liability is being imposed upon the agent in this particular case.

Let us state our attitude in this matter. We believe that where an agent is a party to something which is done wrong and he knows that he is doing wrong or is perpetrating a wrongful act, whether it be a falsehood, a misrepresentation or any one of these criminal acts, the agent should be liable. We seek no escape for the agent from his responsibility where he is a party to the wrongdoing. However, where he is not a party to the wrongdoing and where the principal is the one who is the party to the wrongdoing, where the principal is the one who is going to get the benefit from the wrongdoing, then, in our view, that responsibility should not be the agent’s responsibility; it should be the principal’s responsibility.

This matter is being dealt with in different forms in some of the other sections of the Customs Act and there are already some provisions which relate to this, but we believe that in this case, where one is extending this kind of liability, to impose this responsibility upon an agent appears to be unjust.

The association has made representations. Other people have made representations. A case has been made out, and I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister is now going to be more sympathetic to the case of the agents than what has appeared to be the position until now.

All I can say is that I appeal to him not to impose a liability which goes contrary to the traditions of our law. In case he still remains hardened in that attitude, I will move an amendment seeking to have at least a limitation in time with regard to this matter, because what may happen is that the principal may go bankrupt. He may disappear. They may close his business. He may do all sorts of things, and there may be negative consequences for the agent. If he has to pay he may never be able to recover it from the person who is really responsible. Therefore, that amendment is on the Order Paper, and I do not want to hear the same argument from the hon. the Deputy Minister that I heard from the hon. the Minister of Finance this morning, that because there is an amendment I approve of the clause. I will only be moving the amendment as a safeguard. If the clause does go through then, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister insists on going ahead with it, I want to know that there is a safeguard. For the reasons I have just set out, I now move the following amendment formally—

Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by associating myself with the friendly words of the hon. member for Yeoville to the new hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. The hon. the Deputy Minister was my benchmate until yesterday.

I must say that the hon. member for Yeoville is an experienced politician. I believe, however, that his congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister were sincere. He put it very nicely and we appreciate it. We on this side of the House therefore also associate ourselves with the words of the hon. member for Yeoville. We wish the new hon. the Deputy Minister success for the future. We know he is efficient. He also proved his efficiency when he was chairman of the Select Committee on Plural Relations. Furthermore, he is a hard worker, a purposeful person, one who does not mind working until late at night in the interests of the cause he serves. He is always prepared to meet his responsibilities.

That is where my agreement with the hon. member for Yeoville ends. I now want to talk to him in a different vein. The hon. member for Yeoville often sees ghosts where no ghosts exist. The hon. member complains that we are lowering the import duty on champagne but that we are raising the import duty on washing machines and geometry sets which are used by children in school. The hon. member knows just as well as I do why we increased the import duty on certain articles.

The motto of this party has been through the years, since the establishment of the NP. “South Africa first.” Through the years we have attempted to give industry and related spheres of activity in our own country the opportunity to develop, so that we need not be dependent on imported articles or on importers. I believe the hon. member for Yeoville, however, was only making a joke. If I am certain that the hon. member will enjoy a glass of champagne, I shall invite him one day to enjoy a glass of champagne without his having to drink one drop of imported liquor.

The hon. member for Yeoville has a tremendous fear of the word “retroactive”. Perhaps his mind is still on this morning’s debate, a debate in which legislation was discussed which would have a retroactive effect. I believe that what is envisaged here by the department, is simply to ensure that if problems do arise, the State will be in a position to face those problems. Furthermore, the hon. member for Yeoville also became highly upset about the provisions of clause 6. I shall also say something about that shortly.

I have to point out that the department does not exist to hurt the importer. These amendments to the Act are not intended to hurt or offend the agent. The amendments to the Act have been made on the basis of experience which the department has gained over the years. Experience has shown that there are shortcomings here and there which have to be rectified. This can be seen very clearly in clause 6, as will also become obvious when I discuss it in more detail shortly. The hon. member for Yeoville made a very kind statement with regard to the present Secretary of the department. I agree with him that the Secretary is an honourable man, but the Secretaries of departments are people who have come a long way through their departments. They are people who have traditions … [Interjections.] Yes, I said that the Secretaries had come a long way through their departments. The Secretary was not appointed from outside the Public Service, if that is what the hon. member means. The heads of Government departments are people who know the law. They know every section of the legislation which is applicable to their department. The present Secretaries of Government departments are people of integrity, people who have been trained and are working within the tradition of those departments. Therefore I should like to accept that the successors of the present Secretary will be people with the same integrity and therefore we shall be able to trust them also to apply the law as it should be applied.

The hon. member for Yeoville made the same interjection about “taxing the poor” as he did last year or the previous year when turnover tax was introduced. He said this afternoon that we were doing a disservice to the pupil who now had to pay more for a geometry set because we were raising the import duty slightly. I think the hon. member should be a little more realistic.

The purpose of the Bill which is before the House, is, of course, in the first place, to assure the State of a major source of income. In the second place the legislation exists to ensure that all importing and exporting will be conducted in an orderly way, and thirdly, to ensure that nothing will be imported or exported which will be harmful to our economy or to the country and the nation as a whole. In the fourth place, the Department of Customs and Excise is there to ensure that no evasions or irregularities with regard to imports and exports will take place.

If one looks at the long title of the Bill one will see, inter alia, that it is proposed there to further regulate the disclosure of certain information by officers. The customs officer receives goods which are entered and it is logical that the information which such an officer obtains in respect of duty, will be conveyed by him to the Secretary for Inland Revenue. After all, it is logical that such an officer will inform the department. There is nothing sinister about that. The long title further proposes that provision be made to exclude a certain liability by reason of the wrong delivery of certain goods and to extend the information which an importer of goods has to furnish. It also seems logical to me that any importer has to be honest with the department and has to tell them exactly what he has imported and what he has in his suitcase.

The long title further proposes that provision be made for the determination by the Secretary for Customs and Excise of the classification of goods with reference to the duty payable thereon. It is logical that the department should know exactly what the duty is so that they can tell the importer what he has to pay on each article. I can carry on in this vein, but I should like to discuss a few of the clauses of the Bill.

Section 39 of the principal Act is being amended by clause 4 to provide that additional information in accordance with the purpose for which goods are entered shall be mentioned on bills of entry. This is simply asked of the importer and he is required to be honest.

Clause 5 deals with the transferring of the liability for the payment of the duty on goods which are lost in the appointed transit shed from the importer to the conveyor. I have been told by the department, and I accept it, that the reason for the amendment is to bring that particular subsection into line with the provisions of section 11(2) in terms of which a conveyor is liable for the duty on goods in respect of which a proper declaration was not made, for the duration of the period in which such goods remain in a transit shed or other approved place. The statement with regard to clause 5 states moreover—

The last matter to which I want to refer in this regard, is contained in clause 12, the clause which the hon. member also discussed. This clause amends section 99 of the principal Act. The proposed new subsection (2)(a) states that an agent may be held liable for the duty on goods which have been entered on behalf of an importer. This provision in no way detracts from the liability of the importer himself to pay such duty.

Finally, I want to say that the principle of holding the agent and the importer jointly and severally responsible for the duty on goods which are entered by the agent is a good principle because it is in accordance with the proposals which are at present being considered by the members of the Customs Cooperation Council in Brussels. On the basis of this principle the people are jointly and severally responsible to pay such duty.

We on this side of the House support the Bill. We regard it as good legislation and we are not suspicious about something which is made of retroactive effect. We are also privileged to know that the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department simply want to rectify matters which in their opinion were not quite right. Therefore we shall support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome the hon. the Minister in his new capacity. We wish him everything of the best for the future. The hon. member for Worcester referred to customs and excise and he spoke about the protection of our industries, and I shall deal with that later.

†The hon. member for Worcester also loses sight of the fact that the extra levies that are imposed also increase the rate of inflation in South Africa and also adversely affect certain industries. In fact, it adversely affects the farming industry and increases certain costs to farmers. Therefore it obviously has an effect on increasing the prices of basic foodstuffs. I think the hon. member realizes that.

*We should like to express our gratitude to the officials for the information which they, furnished us with by means of this Bill. I want to thank the Secretary in particular for his patience, for all the information he gave us and for the way in which he always discusses matters with one so readily. There is of course the tremendous saving of approximately R20 000 per annum in the method of drafting this Bill, and we express our appreciation for that. That drafting method came into effect last year already.

†We welcome the protection to our industries, especially in these days of unemployment. The Board of Trade must, however, be more careful not to protect inefficiency, more especially where imported goods are cheaper and could help to combat inflation. Imported goods introduce an even more competitive element and compel our own industries to operate more efficiently. Where monopolistic situations do exist, competition should be welcomed in order to reduce the costs. We welcome the reduction in excise duties and surcharges in relation to the motor and other industries. The excise duty on a small type of car is reduced to 5% and that on a bigger type of car to 10%. On a portion of imported components for the motor industry the surcharge is reduced from 12,5% to 7,5%. These duties in regard to the motor industry should be scrapped completely. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, who now has this new portfolio, to put his shoulder to the wheel and help us by having these duties in regard to the motor industry scrapped as a matter of urgency.

General sales tax is also payable by the motor industry, and because of the successful operation of this tax, the excise duties and the surcharges should, as I have said, in all fairness be scrapped completely. The motor industry is subject to very many difficulties, including the fuel crisis. Its contribution to the economy is, however, very substantial. It is therefore imperative for the Government to go out of its way to improve this industry with all the incentives possible in order to make the motor industry a big export industry in South Africa. It would be in the interest of South Africa as a whole if the motor industry could be built up into a big export industry, but that can only be done if the hon. the Deputy Minister would assist the industry by scrapping these excess duties I have mentioned. If we could create an export industry in motor-cars, it would be an enormous financial achievement for South Africa but it would require vast investments on the part of the motor industry. The financial rand has helped in this regard and has attracted further investments to South Africa. The Port Elizabeth complex is very heavily dependent upon the motor industry, and this industry and the allied industry provide employment for thousands of people in Port Elizabeth and the eastern Cape region. The hon. the Deputy Minister is well aware of the unemployment situation, and it is therefore completely unacceptable that there should be a continuation of the excise duty and surcharge in addition to the general sales tax. This, of course, affects certain other industries as well. I should like to make a special appeal that we ensure maximum employment and growth in the motor industry by taking the necessary steps to stimulate that industry.

Clause 4 deals with computerization. I understand that within a few years the department hopes to have a land-line computer linked to a computer bureau in Pretoria. This is an improvement in the structure and we welcome it.

Clause 6 provides for a new system whereby importers will be compelled to ask for a tariff determination before importing. The importer will then know where he stands because the determination will be gazetted and the importer will then have the right to object. He can even appeal to the courts if he so wants. However, in addition to that clause 6 provides for retrospectivity, which is something one would like to avoid, if this is at all possible. However, as far as false declarations are concerned, one can understand the need for retrospectivity. Of course, if this retrospectivity favours the importer, it stands to reason that if the tariff determination is proved to be wrong, this would affect the importer in the sense that he would benefit or lose, depending on how the tariff is calculated.

As I understand it clause 10, read in conjunction with clause 13, ensures that all the rebates mentioned in clause 13, are to the benefit of both the importers and manufacturers. In this respect retrospectivity will assist the manufacturers and the other importers. However, despite the positive effect of clause 13, the effect of the proposed new section 75(15)(A) will be to give the hon. the Minister a blank cheque because it reads as follows—

The words “public interest” and “retrospectivity” worry us, because for obvious reasons—and I do not want to go into details now—they can be interpreted in different ways by different people. If, however, there is mala fides or dishonesty on the part of the importer, with the result that he has to repay moneys that are due, he certainly cannot claim hardship. I mention these factors to show the problems that relate to this subsection and the hardship that could be involved. This discretion will have to be exercised with the greatest circumspection.

In conclusion I want to point out that we cannot support the system whereby in addition to the general sales tax, there is still the excise duty and the surcharge in regard to certain industries like the motor industry. In the circumstances we shall be opposing this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the congratulations of hon. members on both sides of the House to the hon. the Deputy Minister on his appointment to this portfolio. We are sure that he will perform this duty with much enthusiasm and dedication. We do not doubt his efficiency for one moment. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to convey our congratulations to him once again.

We have had to listen again to the old story of the Official Opposition that they are the so-called champions of the poor. They do this without realizing the full consequences of the measure. As has happened so often in the past, the hon. member for Yeoville and his party are once again running away from the financial implications and responsibilities emanating from this measure. This essential amending Bill—which is introduced every year—remains an important financial measure to enable the machinery of State to run smoothly. Most of these clauses envisage a more flexible and streamlined procedure to facilitate the recovery of customs and excise duties. The necessity for the recovery of excise duties remains a financial control measure. Not only does it serve to supplement the funds of the Treasury but also as an inhibiting factor in importing goods. The scientific application of this duty has a very positive and financial ripple effect which cannot be disregarded in file monetary dispensation. This amending Bill effects about 12 amendments to the principal Act. Some of them are less important while others are more far-reaching, as was pointed out by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Clause 1 defines the concept of “manufacture” in more detail and includes more than was originally intended. The discretion of the Secretary of the department is extended to give more flexibility to the interpretation of the meaning of “manufacture”. Clause 3 has become necessary. It safeguards the departments against a dispute later on. Delivery only takes place by arrangement. Section 47 of the principal Act is amended by clause 6. This obliges the importer and his clearing agent to make a determination in advance. The clearing agent then has the choice of determining during entering which tariff is applicable. This is now being amended in such a way that the importer has to determine in advance which tariff will be applicable. The arrangement not only binds the importer but also the department.

Objection is now being made to the retroactive effect of this clause. However, if an importer acts mala fide in this respect, it is in the interests of the department that steps be taken. The principle of the clearing agent and the importer being made jointly and severally liable for the duty on goods after they have been entered by the agent, is welcomed by hon. members on this side of the House. The agent performs the task of the importer and in this case renders expert service. He has to accept the liability jointly and severally together with his principal the importer.

I have just referred to the liability jointly and severally, of the importers and their clearing agents. I want to make use of this opportunity to refer just briefly to a group of hon. members who today have the privilege of sitting in this row of benches on both sides of me with the necessary permission of the Whips. [Interjections.] When we look at this group of mid-seventy-year-olds from the hon. member for Overvaal on my left to the hon. member for Alberton on my right, we find a group of hon. members here who pull their weight in this House very faithfully. [Interjections.] The principle of joint and several liability has been accepted by this group as far as their responsibility to this House is concerned, and therefore one will always find the members of this group faithfully in their places here in the House as they have always been found here in the past. Our motto is: Faithful to ourselves, faithful to each other, but, above all, faithful to the party we love. That is the attitude we should like to see in all hon. members. Therefore all of us have pleasure in supporting this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Afrikaans language has a very good expression which says: “Jakkals prys sy eie stert,” and I think it applies very aptly to the hon. member who has just sat down.

It is a fairly “lang stert” that!

It may be a “lang stert”, but we have not seen how beautiful it is. As I see those hon. members sitting there, I must assure them that they are not the most beautiful members in the House. I should think the hon. the Deputy Minister, with the facilities the Government will have in terms of the next piece of legislation dealing with sales tax that we shall debate, will find a means of surcharging them for the right they have to be sitting there.

We are dealing with the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill today. Customs and excise are one of the oldest activities that Parliament has ever engaged in. Hon. members who are historians will know that this was one of the very founding measures which gave Parliament control over the income of the executive. The levying of customs and excise in the old form of tonnage and poundage dates from the year 1297 when King Edward I had to trade a right to levy duties with a promise to consult Parliament before he would do so. The piece of legislation before us is probably the most complicated legislation that can come before the House. I would also like to express my thanks for the documents that have been given to us. In the old days they were part of the Bill, but we now get them in a separate form. Anybody who has tried to figure out how one moves amendments in regard to this Bill, will agree that surely no one in this House knows how. I can certainly not, and I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister can either. We are reliant on the department to instruct us and to lead us through what is really a maze and a thicket.

In regard to the Bill before us I would agree with the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to this very serious reservations about clause 12. There are considerable amounts of money involved here, where an agent may be liable for something over which he really has no control whatsoever. Through the good offices of the hon. member for Yeoville I have been able to have an insight into some of the practical problems which these agents face, and I really think that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have to give us a very good explanation in answer to the Second Reading debate. Even then I do not think that I shall be inclined to support the clause during the Committee Stage.

My principal objection to the Bill and the reasons why I shall move an amendment are that I have now asked, for the second year in succession, during the budget debate and elsewhere, that the hon. the Minister of Finance, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs should appoint an inter-departmental committee that should be charged with establishing where, in the Customs and Excise Act and the Sales Tax Act, imposts and charges are made which contribute directly to the input costs of farmers. When I have said this, I have enjoyed support from hon. members on that side of the House. They have all agreed with me that the only way in which one is realistically going to bring down the price of food in South Africa, is by attacking the input costs of farmers. This is now the second year in succession that I have asked that such a committee be established, and absolutely nothing has been done about it at all. The hon. member for Carletonville can point to nothing, because no action of this kind has been taken to find out in what way the input costs of farmers can be brought down. What we did get was a decrease in the excise duty on tractors from 1216% to 716%. I want to say that at the Committee Stage I intend moving that the 716% duty on tractors be deleted. That involves an amount of R7,5 million. I want to ask the hon. member for Carletonville whether he will support such a deletion.

The Deputy Minister is a farmer. Talk to him about it.

I am asking the hon. member for Carletonville. The hon. the Deputy Minister is charged with a duty by the Government, so he will not agree to it. I am asking the hon. member for Carletonville, who is a farmer and the head of a very important tractor-using farmers’ organization, whether he will support me when I move that the R7,5 million earned on excise duty on tractors be sacrificed. [Interjections.] The problem we have, Sir, is that there is a lot of talk and that people get very excited when one talks about the possibility of reducing food prices, but that nothing is in fact done. If ever there was a time when action was most desperately and urgently needed to reduce the price of food, it is now. It is accepted by every member in the House, and particularly the farming members, that it is a practical suggestion I have made—and it is supported by those members—that, by reducing the input costs of food, one is going to come out at the other end with a reduction in the price of food which will in fact exceed the reductions now proposed. The R7,5 million is merely one example of the amounts I have proposed should be got off the farmers’ backs. We have, however, had absolutely no action whatever and I intend moving an amendment to give point to what I have said.

I also have amendments on the Order Paper with regard to the question of paraffin—it is called kerosene in the Bill—for heating and lighting purposes. The point has previously been made in the debate that paraffin is the prime ingredient…

Of primuses.

Yes, it is the prime ingredient of primuses. What I intended saying, is that paraffin is the prime commodity the Black people in urban areas use for cooking, lighting and heating. Surely it is possible for the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department in a case like this to reduce the charge on that particular commodity to make things easier for the Black people in the urban areas. I have tried to establish what the amount involved would be. I have no intention of making wild statements here that we should, for instance, reduce customs and excise on this commodity by R185 million. Unfortunately, in the time at our disposal we have not been able to establish the amount involved, but I think that in principle the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to be able to agree to such an amendment. In the Committee Stage I shall move those amendments.

To give point to what I have said about the Second Reading, I now move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, first of all, allow me to thank the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Mooi River for their kind words. In the case of the hon. member for Mooi River, he addressed them to me in an earlier debate today. As the hon. member for Yeoville has said, he and I have been in the same places together for over 13 years now, starting with the Provincial Council of Transvaal. I thank him very much for what he said. I appreciate it very much.

*I should also like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the hon. member for Walmer, who apologized for being unable to be present, and towards the hon. member for Gezina, who was also unable to be present at this stage. I do not believe anyone will really blame me today if I do not comply with the requests of all hon. members. As the hon. member for Mooi River said, this is complicated legislation. It affects our sources of revenue, our taxation sources, and they are to be treated with circumspection. I suppose it is very popular to want to make concessions in general and I suppose one will be very popular if one does that, but then one should remember one thing: Alternative sources of income have to be found because of the concessions that have been made.

One can always reduce the expenditure.

The hon. member for Yeoville raised a certain matter and I do not blame him for raising that point. In fact, I think it is a good political point to refer to the fact that while the duty on champagne is being reduced, the duty on washing machines is being increased.

You would also have raised that point.

That is why I say that that is a good point.

The duty on imported sparkling wines was lowered because the duty on the local product was also lowered. I suppose hon. members are aware that we are here dealing with a product which is bound to GATT and consequently the Government had no alternative. It simply had to lower the duty on imported sparkling wine because it had already lowered the duty on the local product.

In the case of washing machines, the duty was raised, but that was done on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industry. As hon. members probably know, the Board of Trade and Industry undertakes in-depth studies of the whole matter. We simply reacted to a recommendation by the board.

If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Yeoville was experiencing problems with the fact that the Department of Customs and Excise makes certain information available to the Receiver of Revenue. I want to point out to the hon. member that it is provided very clearly that the Department of Customs and Excise may only give such information to the Secretary of Inland Revenue or to an official appointed by him. That is the only place where such information can be used.

The hon. member for Yeoville also objects to the payment of duty on geometry instruments used, for instance, by school children. I want to point out once again that the department acts only on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industry. The board carries out in-depth investigations into industries and makes recommendations after thorough consideration. The department then acts on the basis of such recommendations.

The hon. member for Yeoville is experiencing many problems with clause 6. In view of the very good replies by the hon. members for Gezina and Worcester I can only let that principle suffice. There are always cases where people act improperly and therefore one needs powers to enable one to take steps against them. Therefore I cannot accept those particular amendments.

I now come to the hon. member for Worcester. I want to thank him for his good wishes. He was my benchmate for many years and it was very pleasant to be able to have him as a benchmate. I want to come back to the hon. member for Yeoville again and refer to the statement he made with regard to the position of agents, in Australia, for example. I should prefer not to react to this, since two different interpretations of that Act exist. The position is therefore somewhat obscure. However, if the hon. member for Yeoville insists on an answer, I predict that, taking into account the decision of the Customs Co-operation Council, many countries, including Australia, are going to review their legislation in regard to the liability of an agent.

I just want to point out that in this regard we comply in all respects with the resolution adopted by the international conference, as I did in fact indicate earlier.

The hon. member for Walmer has the interests of the motor industry at heart. The hon. member asked to be excused. He has another appointment. I can assure the hon. member, however, that the Government does not lightly disregard the interests of the motor industry. It is a very important industry in our country, and we shall look after the interests of that industry with great responsibility. The surcharge is, however, very low at present, only 7,5%. It has already been lowered from 15% to 7,5%. This means that a considerable concession has already been made to the motor industry, a concession of 7,5%. The hon. the Minister of Finance has already indisputably confirmed that this is a temporary measure and that the surcharge will be totally abolished as soon as the financial condition of the country permits.

With regard to the hon. member’s request, I have to point out that it is not possible to exempt components of motor vehicles or any particular article from surcharge, because that would diminish the taxation basis of this tax, and as a result less revenue would be earned.

I should now like to deal with clause 3, a clause remarked on by various hon. members. Clause 3, in terms of which section 17 of the Principal Act is amended, deals with the liability of the State with regard to goods delivered from the warehouse. Goods are stored in the State warehouse when some legal requirement in respect of such goods is not complied with. It serves only as security to cover the duty payable, or for their safekeeping if they are illegal goods. As I have already mentioned in the course of my speech—and I want to repeat it—the aim is not to safeguard the department against negligence. The attention of hon. members is drawn to the fact that in terms of the provisions of section 17(3) of the principal Act, the State or any officer cannot at present be liable in respect of any loss or diminution of or damage to any goods in a State warehouse. The provision of this subsection, however, has never been implemented to safeguard either the department or any of its officials against any negligent act.

†The hon. member for Mooi River also spoke about kerosene. I do not regard it as expedient at this stage to disturb the balance in the duty structure between the various petroleum products, particularly fuel distillates, diesel fuel and residual fuel, the duty structure of which is intimately linked with that of kerosene. Furthermore, if these amendments were to be accepted that would also result in a substantial loss of revenue to the State.

Do you know how much?

I shall go into that and perhaps give the hon. member an indication during the Committee Stage.

*The hon. member also referred to agricultural products. I first want to reply to the hon. member on the question of tractors. If the surcharge on tractors is abolished, it will mean a loss of revenue to the State of R7,2 million per annum. It should also be noted that only goods which are bound by GATT are exempted from the payment of surcharge. These tractors are not bound by GATT and it is not desirable to draw a distinction in this regard. There is a great deal of sympathy with the position of the farmer and the Government is in earnest in seeking to keep the production costs of the farmer as low as possible in order to keep the prices of food as low as possible. However, it will perhaps not be the correct method or step at this stage to permit a reduction in this regard, although there is a great deal of sympathy for this.

I shall react further during the Committee Stage to matters raised by hon. members.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I raised with the hon. the Deputy Minister the question relating to the meaning of the proposed new section 4(3)(c). I asked whether the information which could be given to the Secretary for Inland Revenue was related solely to sales duty matters or to general matters relating to revenue. I indicated to him that there was a possible difference in interpretation of this particular paragraph. When he answered, however, he said that the information could only be given to the Secretary for Inland Revenue, but that does not answer the question I put. The question I therefore pertinently put to the hon. the Deputy Minister now is: What information may be conveyed? Is it information relating only to sales duty matters, or does it relate to general revenue matters? I quote the proposed new section 4(3)(c)—

Are the words “for the purposes of the Sales Tax Act” merely intended to apply to the officers or are they intended to apply to the information? We believe that the only information given should relate to sales duties and not to a person’s general tax affairs. That is the question I want to put to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville is quite correct in saying that it only applies to the sales duty and to nothing else.

Thank you.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister said it was not the intention to protect the department against wrongful delivery arising from gross carelessness or negligence. He said it was not the intention to force the clause in its broad form. Would he therefore please indicate whether, at some stage, he would not consider deleting the exclusion of liability for wrongful delivery arising from gross carelessness or negligence? I shall not move an amendment now, but would the department not consider that so that it is clear to the public that if there is a wrongful delivery, owing to the negligence of the department, they do have a claim?

Mr. Chairman, I undertake to have another look at that, but not in the Committee Stage.

I accept that.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I indicated our objections to this clause. I regret to say that the answers the hon. the Deputy Minister gave did not deal with, or dispose of, the problems we have with the clause, because in reality we shall still have to rely entirely on the goodwill of the Secretary. Although that is all very well, it is not the way the law should be formulated. I do not want to pursue this argument to any great lengths. All I want to indicate to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that we regret that we cannot accept the clause in this form. We shall therefore vote against clause 6.

Mr. Chairman, we shall also vote against this clause for the reasons given by the hon. member for Yeoville. I really do not think that it is the sort of legislation one ought to support because one is expected to rely entirely on the good offices of a person who is in charge of a department. This is not constructive legislation. Whether there is any alternative or not, I do not pretend to understand. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister might be able to supply us with an answer.

Mr. Chairman, the proposed section 47(9)(d) is a new provision. As I said in my Second Reading speech, if no problems of interpretation arise which prove to be justified, the section will be rectified in next year’s Amendment Bill. I undertake to do so.

Mr. Chairman, can we then clearly understand that the basis of this clause is that it will only be used either to waive or reduce duties or to deal with fraudulent practices, and for nothing else.

That is the actual intention.

Thank you.

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

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to place on record our objections to retrospectivity provisions. I do not propose to debate the issue any further with the hon. the Deputy Minister. We have done that in the Second Reading. I merely want to place on record that we do not approve of retrospective forms of legislation.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

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

1. (1) On page 10, in line 33, after “amended” to insert “(a)”;
2. (2) on page 10, after line 52, to add:
   1. (b) by the addition of the following subsection:
   2. “(5) Any liability in terms of subsection (1), (2) or (4)(a) shall cease after the expiration of a period of two years from the date on which it was incurred in terms of any such subsection.”.

The purpose of the amendment is merely to bring some degree of finality to the situation. The idea is to have a clause in terms of which i the liability of the agent ceases after the expiration in a period of two years from the date on which it was incurred. In other words if, after that time the principal goes bankrupt, or if something happens to him from which he cannot recover, there should be some degree of finality reached within a period of two years. The period of two years should be more than adequate for the department to do what is necessary in the circumstances.

I want to make it clear to the hon. the Deputy Minister—I did say this in the Second Reading debate too—that I regard this very much as being the third, fourth or fifth prize. I do not regard this as being the first prize. It is merely something to mitigate a provision which we do not approve of in the first place. We disapprove of the concept contained in clause 12 and therefore of the clause itself. However, as we think that the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to push it through in any case, we should like to water it down a little to make it more acceptable to the people who are involved.

Mr. Speaker, the amendment to clause 12 of the Bill, as proposed by the hon. member for Yeoville, is accepted. The effect of clause 12, which, inter alia, inserts section 99(2)(a), is to put all agents dealing with matters concerning customs on an equal footing. By moving this amendment, the hon. member implies that he accepts the principle. However, I shall not hold that against him. Although it was not the intention to extend the liability for all obligations, including the payment of duties, charges and penalties, by more than two years, this amendment now clarifies the issue. I accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to the hon. the Deputy Minister for accepting my amendment, but he must not start playing games by saying that that means that I accept the principle of the clause. He knows that I do not. He knows full well that it does not mean that we accept the principle of the clause. I might just point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that when he referred to the situation in Australia, he said that he did not want to go into details. The reason why he cannot do so, of course, is because the law in Australia is not as it is here now. Whether Australia is going to change that law is quite a different story. I do not know whether Australia intends doing so. At the moment, however, the Australian law to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred at Second Reading is not the same as the South African law, and I think we must just accept that situation. Basically the amendment improves the provision a little, but the clause as a whole is still unacceptable to us, and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister understands that situation.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Clause 13:

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

1. (1) On page 10, in line 57, after “Act” to insert:
   : Provided that in the amendments made by Government Notice No. R.1542 of 28 July 1978, the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (6), viz. “Power, illuminating or heating kerosene, for all purposes—Full duty”
2. (2) on page 10, in line 57, after “Act” to insert:
   : Provided further that in the amendments made by Government Notice No. R.36 of 12 January 1979, the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (5), viz. “Power, illuminating or heating kerosene, for use in agriculture or forestry, including road transport for such purposes—Full duty”
3. (3) on page 10, in line 57, after “Act” to insert:
   : Provided further that in the amendments made by Government Notice No. R.1544 of 28 July 1978, the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (6), viz. “Power, illuminating or heating kerosene, for all purposes—Full duty”
4. (4) on page 10, in line 57, after “Act” to insert:
   : Provided further that in the amendments made by Government Notice No. R.38 of 12 January 1979, the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (5), viz. “Power, illuminating or heating kerosene, for use in agriculture or forestry, including road transport for such purposes—Full duty”
5. (5) on page 12, in line 5, after “Act” to insert:
   : Provided that in the amendments made by Government Notice No. R.644 of 29 March 1979, 0% is substituted for the rate of surcharge on agricultural tractors

I must say that it is one of the anomalies of the way in which the Customs and Excise Bill is now introduced that the first four amendments have to relate to the insertion on page 10, in line 57, of certain words after “Act”. If hon. members would care to look at page 127 of the big blue book we were given, the relevant Government Notice will be found there. It is my proposal that there should be a rebate of the full duty. My third amendment also relates to that. Why this has to be done twice I really do not understand, but that was how the amendment was given to me. My second and fourth amendments relate to the Government Notice of 12 January which does not appear in the big blue book at all. Whether it was issued too early or too late for inclusion in this book, I do not know. The hon. the Deputy Minister will have to tell me because in terms of the system under which we have to work, we are given the book and the notices and have to relate the notices in the book to those before the House. Whether those two amendments are going to be ruled out of order, I do not know, because in the book there is no mention of the notice of 12 January. The intention of the notice, as I have indicated at Second Reading, is to remove the duty on paraffin which is used for heating, lighting and cooking purposes by Black people in urban townships. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that he is not prepared to accept such an amendment because he is not prepared simply to wipe the amount out as it would then impose upon him or the hon. the Minister of Finance an obligation to raise revenue in another fashion. Both the hon. the Deputy Minister and I are unable to say exactly how much money is involved in this. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister is now able to give me the amounts in view of having received more information. I do not believe, however, that it is going to be a tremendously substantial amount. What I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister is—as I shall say again when I discuss the next amendment—that a small amount of money involved, particularly in relation to tractors, and the hon. the Minister of Finance will find that next year, when he comes to report on the financial activities of this year, he will have a substantial surplus. Hon. members will ask how I know. I know because it very seldom happens that there is not a substantial surplus which is then transferred to other accounts. We had a classic example last year with regard to the Railways. I moved to delete an amount of R13 million on the carriage of livestock, and the hon. the Minister of Transport really went to town and said that I was ruining the whole operation of the railway system. The following year, however, there was surplus of approximately R100 million on the operation of the Railways.

I am therefore not impressed by any arguments to the effect that one cannot do this because it will be taking revenue out of the hands of the State and the Minister will have to find some other means, in the form of a levy, charge or tax, to replace the amount of money concerned. I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister in view of the very difficult times people are going through today to consider the relevant amendment sympathetically because this is what basically underpins the worried life of Black people in the townships surrounding the White urban areas.

Mr. Chairman, I am very sorry, but I cannot accept that amendment of the hon. member for Mooi River. It will have the effect that no duty will be payable on kerosene. I have every sympathy with the people who use kerosene for lighting, heating, etc., but I do not regard it as expedient at this stage to disturb the balance in the duty structure between the various petroleum products, particularly in respect of distillate fuel such as diesel oil and residual fuel oil, the duty structure of which is intimately linked with that of kerosene.

I cannot give the hon. member an estimate of the loss that will result from this. All I can say at this stage is that I regret I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I will certainly register my objection to the clause by voting for my amendment. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that between now and when this matter comes up again next year I will make it my business to go into it a great deal more thoroughly to obtain a far greater clarity on it. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will do the same so that, when we come here next year, we will know what the amounts involved are as well as the details of the balance in respect of the crude oil, the distillates, etc. I can assure him we will know a great deal more about it next year and I think that the debate which will take place next year might well be more informed than the debate this afternoon was.

Amendments (1) to (4) put and negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Amendment (5) put:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something further on this amendment.

I am afraid that is not permitted.

I have only spoken twice on this clause, Sir.

I have already begun to put the amendments. The hon. member can, if he wishes, come back to the matter in the Third Reading.

Amendment (5) put and negatived (Official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Before calling upon the Secretary to read the next Order of the Day, I have to inform hon. members that my attention has been drawn to a sub-leader which appeared in The Argus of 19 June under the heading “Condoning theft”. As I considered that the wording of the article, read with the heading, could be interpreted as implying that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had committed theft of public funds, thereby casting a very serious reflection on their integrity as Members of Parliament, I requested the Editor of The Argus to call at my office this afternoon.

*The Editor assured me that it had not been the intention of The Argus to cast any such reflections on the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance and tendered a written apology to me, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance for any reflection on the Ministers concerned or the institution of Parliament.

The Editor also undertook to publish this apology in his editorial column tomorrow with the same prominence as the article which led to the apology.

†In view of the terms of the apology which the Editor has offered, I consider that the matter need not be taken any further, and I recommend accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for East London North keeps on repeating the allegation that appeared in The Argus. He has just told me that he is repeating it.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, what I said to the hon. member for Mooi River was that they put it where it could be stolen. I did not repeat the allegation of The Argus.

Would the hon. member kindly repeat what he said?

Sir, I said they put it where it could be stolen; in other words, what I was clearly implying was that the money was taken from the Vote and put at the disposal of the Department of Information, where it disappeared, or at least a certain part of it. What I said was: “They put it where it could be stolen. ”

The hon. member heard my ruling. It is a serious matter and it took me quite some time today to resolve it in this way. I think it was not appropriate for the hon. member to pass a remark which could in a way be construed as perhaps condoning what was done. I therefore think the hon. member must retract the remark and leave the matter in my hands.

Mr. Speaker, I am fully prepared to leave the matter in your hands. I had absolutely no intention of reflecting in any shape or form on the ruling which you had made. It is not my intention in the slightest. I give you that assurance, and I withdraw what I have said.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Last year, in the course of the speech made by the hon. the Minister of Finance when he was introducing the Second Reading of the Sales Tax Bill, he said, inter alia, in his introduction that it was expected that the new tax would be a virile one which would give the fiscal authorities greater freedom of movement to plan a more flexible tax policy and to provide, with the tax revenues which a naturally growing source such as a sales tax can produce without having to increase the rate, the means of attaining those economic, social and educational goals which it was not possible to attain with our then existing limited and overburdened tax sources. Although we have only just commenced our tax reform programme I am certain that hon. members would like to know how matters stand with the new tax and what has been achieved in the first financial year in which the tax was in force, viz. the period 3 July 1978 to 31 March 1979.

In the first place the administration of the tax, from the outset, functioned unexpectedly smoothly for a new tax, both for the private sector that has to collect the tax as well as my department which is involved in the implementation of the Act. Admittedly there were the birth pains without which nothing can come into existence, and during the first two to three weeks the staff had to be on their toes to solve a host of minor problems. Quick decisions had to be taken, and sometimes incorrect rulings were given which came to light subsequently—and are still doing so even at this juncture—and had to be rectified. In the legislation which is now being proposed there are in fact measures—which I shall discuss later—to afford protection to enterprises in cases where, in those first hectic days, and perhaps afterwards as well, incorrect rulings were given.

The success which was achieved may be attributed mainly to the talks between my department and organized commerce, industry and agriculture which went on for months, the literally hundreds of seminars, meetings, discussion groups, radio and television interviews, etc., in which both the private sector and my department participated, and the co-operation and mutual trust which was created in this way. Even now the Secretary and his department are still adopting an open door policy and there are few days when discussion of a more specialized nature pertaining to particular enterprises do not still take place. Many of the amendments which are being proposed by this amendment Bill, had their origin in these very talks.

When the Standing Commission on Tax Policy proposed the introduction of a general sales tax at the point of final sale, it recommended that the work be entrusted to the Department of Inland Revenue, provided that that department was able to obtain sufficient staff for the purpose.

Owing to the pressing necessity that there be no delay in the tax structure reform the planning was proceeded with and the staff were gradually recruited and trained. Hon. members will understand that it was not possible to recruit officers who could provide guidance from among people without a tax background, and consequently experienced tax officers had to be drawn from other sectors of the department, and their positions filled in turn with less experienced staff. This entailed that experienced officers, who are always a scarce commodity, had to be moved around to cover all activities of the department. In some offices accommodation problems were experienced, and the sales tax divisions had to be housed in other buildings. This is an undesirable practice, but it will gradually be rectified so that the public will be inconvenienced as little as possible. But owing to the enthusiasm and loyalty of the staff the battle has been won, and I wish to convey to them and to the enterprises in the private sector the sincere thanks of the Minister and the Government as well as my own.

What was the overall result? In the first place hon. members will recall that the estimated revenue from this source announced by the Minister in his budget speech in 1978 was set at R650 million for the 1978-’79 financial year. Criticism was levelled at us from various quarters and we were told that the estimate was hopelessly too low. The final proceeds, unaudited, are R654 million. It ought to be noted that this is an underestimate of only 0,6%.

In the second place the tax clearly demonstrated what it was capable of, and a further step could be taken in the programme of tax reform, as was clearly reflected in the tax proposals of the hon. the Minister this year.

I am deliberately discussing what has been achieved here. Because it is such an important milestone, I think it is important that hon. members be informed of the functioning of measures established by legislation of Parliament.

The explanatory memorandum on the Bill which has been issued to hon. members and which was made available in manuscript form to the finance groups of all parties some time ago, furnishes detailed explanations of the various amendments which are being proposed in the Bill, and hon. members will not take it amiss of me if I concentrate only on a few matters that justify further elucidation. For the most part the measures in the Bill are aimed at improving the administrative provisions to facilitate even further the smooth functioning of the Act and to eliminate snags which have been encountered in its practical implementation.

The first matter I want to touch on is the question of the effect of the withdrawal of rulings given by the Secretary and his officials in the discharge of their duties in terms of the Sales Tax Act. The Sales Tax Act has been in operation for just over 11 months. During that period officials had to furnish taxpayers with guidance over a wide spectrum of matters. In some cases it was possible to deal with problems affecting particular concerns by means of consultation with the organizations representing those concerns. Normally rulings are given at the request of individual taxpayers and various organizations, and my department does so gladly, because it is of the utmost importance that the taxpayer should have certainty as to the sales tax implications of his transaction. It is also important that rulings be given as quickly as possible in order to prevent the disruption of business. Naturally it is important that the taxpayer should be able to rely on departmental rulings, and for the department it is important that such rulings be complied with. In an imperfect world it is possible that mistakes may creep in in the interpretation of the Act by various persons or that, in the light of subsequent experience, a ruling may appear to be out of step or unsatisfactory and be withdrawn. The opinion is held that the withdrawal of a ruling ought not to have a retrospective effect. From the taxpayer’s point of view, he should not be asked to pay additional tax on past transactions. From the department’s point of view, tax which was paid in terms of an accepted ruling need not be repaid.

With the objects of certainty and finality in mind, three amendments are being proposed by the Bill in clauses 2, 12 and 13.

Clause 2 deals with decisions given by the Secretary to any person—

1. (a) to the effect that such person is either required or not required to register as a vendor; or
2. (b) as to the nature of a transaction concluded by such person.

Where the decision is subsequently withdrawn, it shall not retrospectively affect the liability or non-liability of such person for the payment of tax payable or not payable in consequence of such decision. The proposed new provision will only be applicable if the decision was accepted by the person concerned and all the material facts were known when the decision was given.

Clause 12 inserts a new section 26A into the Act which places a restriction on the powers of the Secretary to recover tax retrospectively in the case where he gave a general ruling to the effect that tax was not payable, and subsequently withdrew that ruling. The difference between clauses 2 and 12 is simply that clause 2 deals with particular decisions, while clause 12 deals with general rulings.

Clause 13(b) which amends section 32 of the principal Act, is in certain respects the opposite of clause 12, since it places a restriction on the right of a taxpayer to claim a refund of sales tax where such claim was made more than three months after the transaction or events in terms of which the tax became payable. If the tax was paid in accordance with the practice generally prevailing at the time of the payment, no refund may be made. A refund of an amount overpaid as a result of a miscalculation or an accounting or factual error is not being excluded however and the time limit for refunds in such cases remains two years. The opinion is held that the period of three months affords the taxpayer sufficient opportunity to claim a refund as a matter of principle, in contrast to a mere error of a mechanical nature.

†I should now like to deal with a few random matters. I am pleased to be able to say that the inevitable teething problems encountered when the tax was introduced were not such as to cause any radical change in the basic principles originally followed. Traders readily understood how to apply the add-on and add-in systems of tax recovery. Unfortunately some vendors have been slack about displaying the appropriate notices at entrances to business premises and at points where payments are made. These notices are there to protect the public and it is proposed in clause 6(b), which amends section 10 of the Act, to make the failure to display the notice an offence. Certain other similar offences of a technical nature are also created by the same clause. Another offence is created by clause 18, which amends section 43 of the Act, which offence will be committed if a seller knowingly and without lawful excuse includes in or adds on to the price or amount charged to a purchaser an amount of tax in excess of the tax properly chargeable. This is actually an extension of an existing offence, that is, charging tax when no tax is chargeable. The tax is, as hon. members are aware, an indirect tax in that it is normally payable by one person, the seller, and recovered by him from another person, the purchaser or end-user. Usually, with a tax such as the sales tax, the fiscus is primarily concerned with the person who is responsible for paying the tax, i.e. the seller, leaving it to the parties to arrange how the seller is to recover the tax from the purchaser. This is an acceptable approach in most cases, particularly where the purchaser is in fact the end-user and the parties have a direct contractual relationship. In some cases, for example in the building industry, one finds that a subcontractor, e.g. an installer of lifts, is liable for the payment of sales tax on his subcontract. The subcontractor recovers the tax from the main contractor, and the main contractor recovers from the ultimate employer, i.e. the person who has a building erected. The subcontractor cannot, as a rule, recover the tax directly from the employer. If payment by the employer to the main contractor, or by the main contractor to the subcontractor, is unduly delayed, the subcontractor may be embarrassed by having to finance the payment of the tax some time before he has received payment. The department has discussed these problems exhaustively with the persons concerned, and although further difficulties are not anticipated, it is deemed advisable to give the Secretary a discretionary right to recover the tax directly from an intermediate party or from an end-consumer when the person, from whom tax is recoverable by another person, has refused to pay or did not pay the amount in question when it fell due, so resulting in a delay in the payment of tax to the Secretary or an embarrassment to the person liable to pay the tax to the Secretary. Cases of this nature will be exceptional, and the proposed provisions are to apply when the person from whom the tax is recoverable disputes, or does not acknowledge, the right of the other party to recover the tax. The Secretary’s right to assess and recover tax is provided for in the new subsection (13) added to section 10 of the Act by clause 6(b) of the Bill. It is not felt that there will be any necessity to proceed under the new subsection (13) merely because a vendor has difficulty in recovering amounts owing to him by a customer under an ordinary contract as it is to be expected that parties will make due provision for the tax, and where payment of amounts due under a contract of sale is delayed, the selling vendor is entitled to relief in the form of a debtors’ allowance.

Hon. members are referred to paragraph 17 of the Introduction to the Explanatory Memorandum in which reference is made to certain other administrative provisions of the Bill. It will be seen that many of the provisions of the Bill concern various kinds of enterprises. An effort has been made to provide for the trouble-free functioning of the Act in the case of each kind of enterprise, with due regard to the problems of enterprises in that category. Anomalies have, as far as possible, been removed and lists of tax-free inputs allowable to various categories of enterprises have been expanded or clarified. The explanatory memorandum deals fairly fully with the various changes proposed. I might add that all representations received by the department are carefully considered. A request for the granting of any additional tax-free input to any kind of enterprise normally has to be tested by finding out how the end consumer is affected. For instance, it is relevant to ask how much tax the end consumer indirectly bears in respect of the taxable inputs of a manufacturer—as a hidden element of the price—in addition to the 4% he bears on the price of the manufactured goods. An undue escalation is unacceptable, but a negligible escalation can, in view of the low rate of the tax, be ignored. Research is undertaken on an continuous basis and changes in the price structure may well result in changes to Schedule 2 of the Act in future. It is not pretended that a state of perfection has been reached, as new problems are continually arising and, of course, amendments will have to be made from time to time.

As is the case in all taxes, one must always guard against the whittling away of the tax base by constant exclusions, exemptions and exceptions which might relieve the burden on a particular category of transactions but pass it on to another category. We have in the recent past seen newspaper reports of quite a sharp hike in the VAT rate in the United Kingdom, in fact from 8½% to 15%. This may be partly due to the need for more tax from this source to counteract the relief given in direct taxes, but the high level of VAT can, in my view, also be attributed to the fact that vast areas of sales are zero-rated, thus narrowing the base of the charge.

An important amendment contained in clause 1(d) of the Bill will be found in paragraph (b) of the definition of “exported”. This provision refers to the case of registrable goods, usually motor-cars, caravans, boats, etc., being sold and a sale being concluded on or after the promulgation of the Sales Tax Amendment Act, 1979, the goods being delivered by the seller to any person in the Republic for conveyance to that person’s address outside the Republic. If the relevant law governing registration of such registrable goods does not require that, in consequence of the change of ownership occasioned by the sale, the goods be registered in the Republic, no sales tax will be levied in the Republic in respect of the goods.

Clearly, therefore, under the new provision, a non-resident of the Republic will be permitted to buy a motor vehicle in the Republic, drive it across the border on a temporary permit—pending registration in another country—and no sales tax will be payable by him in the Republic in respect of the sale. It must be mentioned here that if the purchaser ordinarily resides in a country which levies a sales tax on imported goods, e.g. South West Africa, he may have to pay sales tax, in the other country, on the value of the motor vehicle which he imports into that country, but that tax would then be payable in terms of a law of the country in which he resides.

In conclusion I should like to touch on a general impression that seems to crop up in the most unlikely places, that impression being that one can, without much effort, add a further half or one per cent or more to the tax rate to cover the cost of this, that or any other scheme. After all, so the argument runs, what is another percentage point on such a low rate? Let me sound a timeous note of caution. Indirect taxes must be used with the utmost circumspection as they are applied, across the board, on all consumption expenditure of people from all walks of life, and a 1% increase represents a 25% rise in the tax rate. It would be foolish to think that in this changing world anything can remain static, but I am optimistic that, with a growing economy, a jealous husbanding of our tax resources and greater efficiency of administration, as experience is gained, we shall be able to improve the yield from this source without necessarily having to increase the tax rate. To achieve this we must guard against the temptation of seeing the general sales tax as a convenient vehicle for an undisciplined gathering of funds.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is perhaps a bit trying for any new Deputy Minister to be given two such technical pieces of legislation to start his career in Parliament with. I think it is actually being quite tough on him, because this piece of legislation is a most involved and technical piece of legislation. One can therefore have a high degree of sympathy for his having to present it as one of his first pieces of legislation in this House.

I believe that hon. members who have attended to this legislation and are familiar with it owe a great debt of gratitude to those who completed the explanatory memorandum. First of all I think that this is an outstanding document which explains a highly technical piece of legislation in more than adequate detail. Secondly I doubt whether anybody could have gone through this, within any reasonable length of time, without the assistance of the explanatory memorandum. I would therefore particularly like to express my thanks to the Secretary, to the department and to the hon. the Deputy Minister for producing this explanatory memorandum which is beyond the normal, if one can use that term.

While I am in this mood, I also wish to pay a tribute to the Secretary and to his staff for the ability with which this tax has been introduced. Hon. members know that we do not approve of this tax and have voted against it because we feel that at this particular point in time it is not the correct tax to have had introduced in South Africa. The manner in which it was introduced is noteworthy, however, because it was a totally new practice in South Africa with new concepts that had to be applied. I think it is fair, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, that mistakes have been made and that problems have been experienced, but in the circumstances the number of mistakes has been very small. I think that the department as such needs to be complimented on the administrative skill with which it introduced this system of taxation. I say that without any hesitation, and I doubt whether anybody in this House, who is familiar with sales tax, will venture to contradict me.

Another important point to remember is that the introduction of the sales tax has been a classic example of how consultation can, in fact, result in benefits. The department held consultations with a wide-ranging body of opinion, and as a result of those consultations many of the problems have been solved. I think it serves as an example to other departments illustrating how consultation with the people involved produces very good results. I think this situation is once again proof of that.

I should like to draw the attention to some of the problems which, to my mind, still exist in respect of this measure. Firstly there is still a fair amount of escaping of tax liability. Whereas we do not approve of the tax, once there is a tax law, it must be applied to everybody equally, and people who seek to escape from it cast an unfair burden on those who do not. I think there are still a fair number of people who seek to escape their responsibilities in regard to this tax. There are two specific categories that I should like to deal with in this regard. Firstly, I think there are many people who withdraw goods for private use and do not pay sales tax when they should not be withdrawing them for private use without paying sales tax. I think there is a considerable amount of abuse in that direction, abuse by people who use their certificates for purchases for their own consumption, for their friends and for other people as well. I think there is a considerable amount of abuse that has to be stamped out.

The second category I want to deal with involves dealers whose turnover miraculously drops when they are doing cash business. I think there are unfortunately too many people who are not only defrauding—if I may use the term—the Receiver of Revenue, not only on sales tax, but also on income tax because they are conducting cash businesses from which the cash disappears. These are matters which I believe will have to receive the attention of the authorities, in fact the attention of the legislature, in due course, if it cannot be stamped out in terms of existing forms of legislation.

Having said that, I want to turn to some other aspects. Let me first of all refer to the estimate of collection, which I think was excellent. To estimate that one is going to collect R650 million and then to collect R654 million is in my opinion quite an achievement. It actually makes me very suspicious, I must say. It is actually too good. In any event, it is a remarkable result. Secondly, I want to comment on something the hon. the Deputy Minister said in his speech, a little unwisely I thought, because it gives me the opening I wanted. I am concerned here with his reference to the VAT applied in the United Kingdom. The hon. the Deputy Minister drew attention to the fact that here one has a sharp increase, and this is now being used as a reason for saying that in fact not everything is being taxed. The difficulty in respect of the VAT applied in the United Kingdom is that it is not the equivalent of our general sales tax, but rather of our sales duty, which still exists. One of the quarrels I have with the present position is that sales duty still applies far too much. That sales duty is the equivalent of the VAT and in some respects it is way above 15%, as hon. members well know. In the case of jewellery, for example, I think the sales duty is more than 20%. Then one still has to add GST on to that. To compare the VAT of the United Kingdom with our general sales tax is therefore not comparing like with like. I think that in that respect the hon. the Deputy Minister was led into a trap, because it has given me the opening I wanted. What we are suggesting—and we have said it repeatedly— is that under the existing circumstances in South Africa one cannot justify the taxation of the basic essentials of life, one cannot justify that the general sales tax is being applied to the basic foodstuffs people need for their survival. The reason why it cannot be done is that we have a high degree of unemployment in South Africa and a large number of people living at the subsistence level and even below it. Those people cannot afford to pay the general sales tax. The argument is very simple: If one earns R150 per month, it has been shown that one spends at least R100 of that on items which are subject to GST. That means one is spending R4 per month on GST. I want to say that R4 per month to a person who earns only R150 per month is a tremendous sum of money, particularly at this time when the inflation rate, especially in regard to foodstuffs, is so tremendously high. I think that at the moment the inflation rate in respect of food is in excess of 15%. Where one now has a situation of this kind developing here, the VAT concept in terms of which basic foodstuffs, the essentials of life, are not taxed, is something the consideration of which, with respect, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should make one of his first tasks in his new post. The general sales tax should be abolished in so far as it applies to the basic essentials of life.

One thing the hon. the Deputy Minister hardly touched on was the question of add-in or add-on. Right at the outset we took the view—and I am sure we are going to be proved right—that there is room for only one system in South Africa. The argument is advanced that we must give it a bit of time, that in fact we are going to find that gradually some people are going to move from one system to the other and that ultimately almost of itself we will end up with one system in South Africa. I want to say that within a very short while—not more than a year or two since the hon. the Deputy Minister has taken on this portfolio—he will have to introduce legislation in terms of which only one system will be allowed and there will no longer be a choice between the two. Allowing both systems to operate lends itself to exploitation of particularly the less educated and the less sophisticated of our people. I would like to see only one system in operation in South Africa and to see that brought about as soon as possible. If the argument is that one should build up a degree of experience in the field, I want to say that the further period allowed for gaining experience should be very short, after which we should elect one system or the other according to the circumstances. I think that that must be done sooner rather than later in the interests of avoiding exploitation in South Africa.

I now come to the question of rulings, particularly in so far as the provisions of clause 13 are concerned. The approach which we have here is a very simple one and that is that if one has collected the duty and has paid it over to the Secretary, then if the Secretary refunds it, unless it is going to go back to the man who paid it, there is no sense in refunding it. Therefore the concept that we have is that there is no reasons for a man to get a refund if he himself is not going to pass it on to the people who have paid it. In terms of the principles which are presently enshrined in the clause I think we are getting closer to what the answer is, namely that one gets a refund but only when such a refund goes to the people who have paid the tax and that one does not get a refund when the refund does not go to the people who have paid the tax.

I should also like to deal with a couple of smaller things. First of all I want to refer to one of my pet subjects and that is what goes on at customs, at Jan Smuts Airport, at the harbours and in the duty-free shops in so far as what one is allowed to bring in in the form of imported goods and what one is not allowed to bring in.

First of all I come to the duty-free shop. I have experienced myself what happens when foreigners who go into our duty-free shop on their way home are suddenly told that they have to pay 4% GST. They think that a duty-free shop means a duty-free shop. They do not think that a duty-free shop means that one does not pay one kind of duty, but another kind of duty. From a marketing point of view and with a view to creating an image propagating these shops. I must point out that I have not seen a single duty-free shop in the world where one pays some kind of duty, but not the other. There is a fixed price and the whole marketing mechanism of a duty-free shop is that one sells something where there is no duty payable.

In our case when one goes to Jan Smuts Airport, for example, to buy an article, one is asked to pay GST. I think it is a bad marketing mechanism. If there is a substantial amount of revenue, as I believe there is, from the duty-free shops—the hon. the Deputy Minister can mention the figures if he wants to, but I think they are very substantial—I am of the opinion that some other mechanism must be obtained whereby we can either get a higher lease payment for the shop or whatever the authorities require, but I do not believe that the tourist should be put into that position.

They should just add in.

They can do it, but they do not and that is the problem. Even if they added it in, it still would be wrong, because one would really be bluffing the man who buys there when one tells him it is a duty-free shop.

The next point falls both under this Bill and the one we have discussed a short while ago. I am not sure that it is correct that one should be buying duty-free goods with South African currency. I think one should use these shops to get people to buy there with foreign currency. If South African people who are going overseas want to buy duty-free goods, they should use part of their travel allowance to do it, because what is the difference between whether they use their travel allowance here where we get it back again immediately into South Africa and whether they use it overseas to buy things there and bring them back here? It is much better from our point of view that they should use foreign currency here. I believe the answer may well be that if one uses foreign currency in order to buy one’s duty-free goods, one should not pay GST at all. We then have the benefit that we can save that foreign currency for the country. I should like to commend this to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

There are aspects such as rates of exchange at those duty-free shops. Those aspects do not fall under this portfolio, but I think the concept is relevant that one should get an exemption from GST if one uses foreign currency. Whether one is a foreigner using his own currency or whether one is a South African using his travel allowance, does not matter because the benefit to South Africa would be the saving of foreign exchange.

I should like to refer to the question of passengers’ baggage and the amount allowed to be imported free of tax. That amount has recently been increased to R80, but what I find remarkable is that people who are connected with what I call dependence producing substances get some kind of benefit. In other words, if one wants to bring back liquor, one can bring back extra liquor over and above one’s R80. If one wants to bring back cigarettes, one can bring back extra cigarettes over one’s R80. If one is a person, however, not connected with dependence-producing substances, then one is deprived of that allowance. That does not seem to me to be right.

Surely one has one’s allowance, and if one wants to spend one’s money on liquor or cigarettes, if one wants to get lung cancer, that is one’s own business. However, it should not be made advantageous by exempting from sales tax the purchase of cigarettes and liquor overseas, which can then be brought into South Africa, while the same concession is not granted to people who want to bring in substances that are not dependence producing. To me it seems to be inequitable towards people who do not use either cigarettes or liquor. It is for them that I lodge a plea with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I believe they should be treated equally in this respect.

Another matter upon which I should like to touch, is again a matter of detail. That is the question of gas. I hope I am not saying something which the hon. member for Mooi River was going to say, because he always talks about farmers. However, what I want to know is why it is that gas delivered through a main or a pipe, and sometimes from a tanker, is exempted from GST, while someone sitting on a farm, someone who cannot obtain it through a pipe or main or a tanker, has to pay GST on gas which he needs far more than the fellow living in town, who has the convenience of electricity available. Now, what is the logic behind this? Why this discrimination against the farmer? I really cannot understand it. The hon. the Deputy Minister should bear in mind that it is the hon. member for Yeoville who is asking the hon. member for Lydenburg to do something for the farmer in this respect. I do this because I do not believe the farmer is being fairly treated in the circumstances.

I now want to deal with one last thing. I want to return to the issue of general sales tax on the essentials of life, and in particular on foodstuffs. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the following. As we all know we firstly have rapidly escalating prices in regard to basic essentials of life in South Africa. Secondly, the tax concessions which were given have become of very little benefit to the lower-income groups, either because they did not get them—because they do not pay the tax—or alternatively because the concessions they were granted have been eaten away by inflation. Thirdly, I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he will find, as he goes on in this portfolio, that inflation is going to be one of our biggest problems during the next 12, 18 or 24 months and beyond. It is going to be even a bigger problem than the balance of payments. It is going to be a problem which may cause social instability. It is a matter that needs attention. If we want to see the signs of it we should not only look at the consumer price index, but we should look also at the wholesale price index and at the whole structure of what is happening.

We have a situation in South Africa in which we have a vast number of people unemployed, a vast number of people earning a very low income, and social stability is a vital ingredient of the survival of the standards which we would like to see survive in South Africa. Therefore, I believe that we actually have to do something to make life more acceptable, to make living standards more reasonable for people living at the lower income group level in South Africa. If we want to do something to assist people in this regard, we should abolish GST on the essentials of life, particularly on the basic foodstuffs. That is why I now move the following amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I shall return to the hon. member for Yeoville in a moment. I hope he will pardon me if I address a few remarks to the hon. the Deputy Minister first. He has already received many congratulations this afternoon on his promotion to the position of Deputy Minister. Consequently I shall not elaborate on that any further now. However, I do want to avail myself of this opportunity of congratulating him on the way in which he dealt with the first Bill which he introduced in this House.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, I watched the good wife of the hon. the Deputy Minister on the public gallery while he was speaking. I noticed that she looked extremely concerned. I could not help thinking of something which has been recorded in the annals of this House. It concerns an hon. member—I think it was the father of the present hon. member for Carletonville—who, many years ago, was making his maiden speech here in this House. His notes on the bench-top in front of him became a little disarranged, almost as mine are now. After a few minutes, when he could not find the right place in his notes, he looked up, saw that his wife was looking very worried, and said to her: “Never mind, darling, I shall be all right.” [Interjections.] This afternoon I also felt like saying to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s wife: “Never mind, madam, do not worry, he will be all right.” And indeed he was!

We are dealing here with a Bill which, as the hon. member for Yeoville said, is of a very technical nature. Perhaps it was asking a lot of the hon. the Deputy Minister to have to deal with two such technical Bills shortly after he was appointed to that position. In fact, I do not know whether he knew this morning at eight o’clock that he would have to deal with these two Bills, for he was only sworn in at eight-thirty.

This is undoubtedly an extremely complex and technical Bill and that is why the hon. the Minister of Finance, when he introduced this legislation last year, had this to say (Hansard 1978, col. 9427)—

Provision for that is being made in the Act. Because we have such an extremely technical and complex Bill here, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Yeoville and thank him for having paid tribute to the Secretary to the department and the officials who assisted him on having produced such an excellent piece of work in a very limited time last year that it was not necessary to effect more amendments than we have in the Bill before us today. On my part I want to felicitate the Secretary to the department and those who assisted him—and of course the hon. the Minister of Finance, too—on the excellent work which they did. They foresaw virtually everything that could happen. As the hon. member for Yeoville said, it was the very wide consultation with the various sectors of the economy that enabled them to do such a fine piece of work.

As the hon. the Minister of Finance foresaw, it goes without saying that deficiencies would arise, and these are to a great extent being eliminated now in this Bill. I shall refer to this aspect again in a little while. I first want to deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville. I know that it has almost become a hobby-horse of his to pose here as the champion of the little man, the poor man and the less well-to-do, and I do not blame him for doing so. All of us have a soft heart for lesser privileged people. But there is another side to the matter as well.

The Government of a country renders services to the entire population, to the wealthy man and to the poor man. If we keep on telling the less well-to-do that it is not fair that they should pay tax, we create a psychosis of irresponsibility among that sector of the population of the country. That is why the Franzsen Commission proposed years ago that we should strike a new balance in our fiscal policy, viz. that we should collect a larger portion of our tax revenue in the form of indirect taxes. It is not possible, by way of direct taxes, to impose a tax on all those people who never paid taxes before but who nevertheless share in the privileges which the State creates, but it is possible to cause them to pay something by way of indirect tax—not large sums of money—just to emphasize that they have a responsibility to help provide the money with which the State has to render services to the entire population and not only to the more well-to-do. I can never stress this point strongly enough, for if we were to lose sight of it and were to keep on telling the less well-to-do—as the hon. member for Yeoville is so fond of doing— that they need not pay taxes, then we are grabbing a tiger by the tail and sowing the seeds of revolution among that sector of the population. That is why I am very satisfied because the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced general sales tax last year because I consider it to be the most natural, the fairest and the best method of cultivating a sense of responsibility among the entire population.

The hon. member for Yeoville also said that he thought the time would come during the term of office of the present hon. Deputy Minister when he would have to introduce a Bill here to put an end to the dual add-in, add-on system of collecting sales tax. I do not think it will be necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to introduce a Bill to change the system. I take it the hon. member for Yeoville thinks of the add-on system as being the only one. It is well known that prior to the introduction of sales tax the department consulted very widely with all the sectors of the economy, and it was their express desire that there should be a choice. I believe that even before the hon. the Deputy Minister introduces a Bill to make the add-on system the sole system, the other form will have died a natural death. Only recently we heard that one of the large supermarket chains that had opted for the add-in system had now changed over to the use of the add-on system because the public wants to compare prices. The price of a box of soap powder in a shop using the add-in system seems more expensive than the price which appears on the box of soap powder in the shop using the add-on system, with the result that the public buy it in the shop using the add-on system. That is why I have said that the add-in system will die a natural death. Consequently it will not be necessary for the hon. the Deputy Minister to introduce a Bill in this connection in Parliament.

I do not want to say much about the duty-free shops at our airports. The hon. member for Yeoville argued that a foreigner should use only foreign currency if he wishes to buy goods in such a shop because we would then be able to earn foreign exchange. I have respect for the high intelligence of the hon. member, but that argument really does not hold water, for before the foreigner wants to buy goods in that duty-free shop, he must still go to the bank to exchange his foreign currency for South African money. Otherwise he cannot buy any goods in that shop. That foreign currency therefore remains in the bank instead of in the duty-free shop.

I also want to pay tribute to the Secretary to the Department for a paragraph in the new division IVA of schedule 2. Completely new ground is being broken with this division in regard to the services which are rendered in the agricultural sector. The existing Act does not contain such a division. It is a very difficult task which the Secretary had to deal with. I believe that changes will probably have to be effected in this case as well, because it will depend on the interpretation which the Secretary is going to give to Schedule 2, Division IVA(f) as to whether certain things will be allowed. For example reference is made to machinery required for milking cows, etc., but not to milk coolers. To be able to deliver to the public, one needs a milking machine and a milk cooler. However, it is also provided that everything required to prepare the product in such a form or to pack it for delivery to the public, will be exempt from general sales tax.

I want to suggest very courteously to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should effect a minor amendment in Schedule 2, Divisions I and IV. There is an obvious anomaly in regard to the containers and packaging materials, including pallets and binding or tying materials referred to in clause 20(l)(d). The paragraph deals with industrial goods. Industrial goods for export which include containers, packaging material including pallets and binding or tying material, are excluded from the general sales tax. Paragraph 3 of Division IV deals with farming enterprises. I quote—

Once again, as in the previous case—

The tying material is omitted here. I assume now that this is an inadvertent omission, for one cannot use a pallet without tying material. The pallet, as we know it in industry, agriculture and transportation, is a double platform of timber under which the fork-lift is inserted in order to convey the entire pallet in this way from one place to another. It also helps to ensure that the goods in those containers reach their destination intact. Whether those pallets are used in the industrial or agricultural sector, they serve precisely the same purpose. They cannot be used without the tying material, or as it is stated here in the case of industrial goods, the binding or tying material.

I want to request the hon. the Deputy Minister very courteously to insert, in the case of Division IV, paragraph 3, the words “binding and tying material” after the word “pallet”. Without this material the pallet cannot be used.

The entire problem arose of course because it is entirely new concept. The concept of “palletization” is entirely new. When the translators had to translate “pallet” they had in mind the item used by painters in their work, because that is also known as a palette. Consequently they translated the pallets which we use in the transportation sector as “hegstroke”. They were of the opinion that pallets are not a platform on which a number of containers are placed, but that it is the equipment with which painters work. That is why the word “pallet” was incorrectly translated. They have now rectified the error and they no longer refer to “hegstroke”. The word “hegstrook” does not occur in this amending Bill. Reference is made here in Afrikaans to “palette”. However, they have now omitted to insert the words “binding and tying material” in the one case. I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister very courteously to give attention to this matter, so that this insertion can be made during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl ended his speech by making a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister regarding a matter which affects the farming community. Having the interests of the farming community at heart, I obviously support him. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to assist the hon. member. He also spent part of his time dealing with the points made by the hon. member for Yeoville. I must say that I was a little concerned at the proposal made that South Africans, who go out of the country and buy goods in duty-free shops, will have to use some of their scarce amounts of foreign exchange.

If they are going to drink it overseas.

Even if they are going to drink it overseas, they still have a very limited amount to spend. As one of those people who does not go overseas very often, and who certainly does not drink it overseas, I feel that if one is going to buy presents, etc., in any duty-free shop, I would rather use my own South African money than use foreign exchange. I think it might well have the effect of causing purchases by South Africans in that shop to fall off. It has just occurred to me as a practical point that that might happen; I would certainly think not only twice, but three or four times before making a purchase of that sort.

The point has been made as to how very, very accurate the assessment was which was made last year by the department as to what amount would be gathered in this form of tax. I think it was a remarkable achievement. When the Bill was introduced last year, I forecast that it would be a considerable amount more than it turned out to be. What really impresses me, is the accuracy with which the department managed to read the business cycle of the year. I believe if there had been a considerable upturn in business, the amount would have been greater than it turned out to be. They were therefore very accurate indeed in their assessment of what business conditions would be like, and I think that they are to be congratulated for it. I am personally disappointed, however, that the business condition has remained as it has, which was the cause of more money not being made.

The question of the sales tax and its application to all items, or to as many items as possible, including basic foodstuffs, was one that we debated last year, and I would like to draw to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention that one of the legs of our amendment last year, when we voted against the Second Reading, was precisely that the general sales tax was to be levied on basic foodstuffs, while no effort was made by the department, the Minister or the Government to reduce the input costs of the farmer. At the risk of becoming a bore in this House I am going to repeat what I have already said and I am going to move a similar amendment to the one I have moved on the Customs and Excise Bill. Last year we took the point that the cost of basic foodstuffs would go up by a minimum of 4% as a result of the imposition of the general sales tax. I asked then, and I have again mentioned it this afternoon, that the Department of Customs and Excise and the Department of Economic Affairs should appoint an interdepartmental committee to investigate where incidences of taxation— whether of this nature or whether it be customs and excise duties—drive up the input costs of farmers. I have said before, and I say again, that we have had no action whatsoever on the part of the department or on the part of any other department in this regard. I want to give the hon. the Deputy Minister notice that next year, if my party agrees, I intend to move a private member’s motion in this House to the effect that that should be the action taken by the Government to identify charges levied by the Government which drive up input costs of farmers, thereby driving up the cost of food on which 4% sales tax has to be paid. Then we shall be able to see what hon. members on that side of the House, who pretend to be the “kampvegters” of the farmers, say, and whether their mouths are put where our money is put…

Where your feet are put!

Wherever it is or whatever it is, I think I have made it quite clear to hon. members what my point is.

I want to make a very special appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard. I had intended moving an amendment which would have had the effect that fuel, which is used by the farmer to move his crop from the farm to the market, should be exempted from sales tax. If the hon. the Deputy Minister knows anything about the farming community, he will agree with me. This is one thing that the farming community cannot understand, i.e. that where certain input costs are free of general sales tax, they now have to pay tax on the fuel used to transport their crop from the farm to the market. To me it is inconceivable that this should be so. The crop on the farmer’s farm is of no use to anybody, because one cannot eat 50 000 bags of maize or 100 cattle on one’s farm.

In order for it to be effective and of use to the public as a whole, the farmer must move that product into the market. Only when it reaches the market does it become taxable, and it is only at that stage that it becomes of any use to the nation as a whole. Members can say that the same is true of a pair of glasses, a can of guavas or anything else like that, but I believe that the farming community are in a special situation and that the production of foodstuffs is a special case deserving every consideration. By taxing the fuel used to move the foodstuffs from the farm to the market, one is directly contributing to the increase in the price of the foodstuffs concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister, who has practical experience of the farming situation, will know that that is the position. I am sure he will therefore be sympathetic to my plea. My only problem at this stage is that I have not yet been able to identify an item in this particular Bill to which I can tie my amendment. However, when we get to the Committee Stage, I think I will move an amendment anyway to see what happens when the hon. the Deputy Minister has to consider it.

You cannot be sincere, Bill.

The hon. member says I cannot be sincere. He is a man who represents a big farming constituency where thousands of bags of maize are produced, everyone of which has to be transported from the farm to some other point and in respect of which the farmer has to pay tax on the fuel used to move those bags to the market. How that hon. member can sit there and not support me or get up and say to the hon. the Deputy Minister: “You must do this,” I am unable to understand. It is one of the anomalies of politics in our country, it is one of the crazy things about politics in our country that in a case such as I have put, a case that is completely logical and concerning which I am perfectly entitled to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to make a confession to the farming community, one has a member saying “you cannot be sincere”. I cannot understand that kind of attitude at all. I regard it as being a cynical attitude.

Why only grant concessions for the farmer? Why not for the consumer?

It will end up with the consumer.

I think the hon. the Minister really must not get involved in this argument, because he has not heard the whole story. He is just reacting off the top of his head. His comment is of no real value in this particular situation.

I wish to reiterate that we are in favour of the principle of sales tax. I want to make that quite clear. I believe that this sales tax has enabled the Minister to introduce a measure of flexibility into the tax system in South Africa, a flexibility which was very sadly lacking indeed. I imagine that, as time goes by, there will even be a further adjustment made and that direct tax on the income of individuals and companies might even be reduced more than has already happened. I want to make it very clear to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I am not attacking the idea of sales tax as such. I am totally in favour of it and I believe that it is a vital element which has been lacking for many years. However, I want to draw it to the hon. the Minister’s attention that in my opinion there are areas where the position can be improved. The case I mentioned is just cited as one instance of what the departments I mentioned ought to be doing to bring down the input cost to farmers, thereby bringing down the cost of food in South Africa.

To give point to my submission, I move as a further amendment—

Mr. Speaker, it is now a year and six days since we conducted a major debate in this House on the acceptability or otherwise of this form of taxation. On that occasion the hon. the Minister of Finance told us that we were dealing with a new kind of tax. In fact, he foresaw that there would be quite a number of problems with the introduction and implementation of this tax system. Administratively an entirely new machine had to be created.

I should like to associate myself with hon. members who paid tribute to the department today for the tremendous task it has accomplished in causing this tax system to function smoothly. On that specific occasion, a year ago, the hon. member for Parktown said the following. He was referring to what the hon. the Minister had said, i.e. that there would be teething trouble. The hon. member for Parktown then went on to say (Hansard, 1978, col. 9430)—

I do not think any of us regret in the least today having come forward with this legislation a year ago. In fact, I think it was one of the wisest steps that have been taken with regard to tax legislation in this country in many years. This year, we have come forward with quite a number of amendments. We received this explanatory memorandum, for which we thank the department. I studied this memorandum. I subjected each clause to a thorough scrutiny. It took quite a long time, because there are quite a number of amendments. However, I must say that I did not come across a single amendment which I did not find acceptable. I think they are sound amendments, amendments which we ought to effect after having acquired a year’s experience of an entirely new system.

I do not think it is necessary for us to thrash out and argue over the merits of sales tax any further today. We covered that ground pretty thoroughly a year ago. In a certain sense we have done the same today. The hon. the Deputy Minister—and I want to congratulate him on this—elaborated very effectively on this in his Second Reading speech. The hon. member for Paarl also dealt with it very effectively. Certain statements were made by the hon. member for Yeoville and by the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member for Yeoville expressed a measure of praise for the difficult task which the hon. the Deputy Minister has on his shoulders. He expressed his praise for the good work which the department is doing. He also had praise for the fact that there was consultation on this legislation with the private sector and with all other sectors that have an interest in the matter. I should like to associate myself with the praise which the hon. member expressed.

But then the hon. member also indicated certain problems. He said he felt concerned about the evasion of tax in regard to the private consumption of goods. Of course that is true. There will be a certain amount of measure of evasion. How is the Receiver of Revenue to know how many sheep I have slaughtered for my own use? He cannot exercise any control over that. He must simply take my word for it. It is difficult to determine how many goods are utilized for one’s own consumption. But there is one thing we must accept. I think that if the hon. member were to discuss this matter with the Secretary to this department, the Secretary would tell him that if the Receiver were to encounter a 70% to 80% correct assessment, it would probably be accepted as being very good by international standards. We simply have to accept that. But I believe that the department will have to give attention to these specific problems, particularly to the rapidly dwindling turnovers of traders— something to which the hon. member also referred. I shall return in a moment to the argument that this tax on foodstuffs is not justified.

It is true that we are trying, with this tax, to establish a broad tax base. The broader the tax base, the lower the rate can be. To say that we should exempt food and the inputs of farmers, to which the hon. member for Mooi River referred, from this tax, means that we are going to have a whittling away of the tax base. In this country we have food that is very cheap—cheaper than in most other parts of the world. The hon. member for Mooi River will concede that we have already told one another here in debates that food prices can rise and still remain fair.

Why should the tax base be tampered with? Once one tampers with the tax and has abolished the tax on bread, then the tax on eggs and then the tax on milk, where is one going to end? After all, we are considering the poor people in this country. Are we not in fact making tax subsidies available on those commodities such as bread, the staple diet of the poor people in this country, in order to keep its price low? Why should the rich man eat subsidized bread? This is a question which is frequently asked. I also want to ask a question: Why cannot he pay tax on the bread which he eats? 4% is a minimal amount.

The hon. member for Mooi River said that the farmers’ inputs were not being taken into consideration at all, but surely he knows that in the Schedule most of the farmers’ inputs have been exempted in any case. What inputs of the farmer have not been exempted? Primarily the one to which he referred, viz. fuel. This is only fuel for conveyance from the farmers’ gate to the point at which he has to deliver that product. If this fuel were to be exempted, the fuel which the haulier uses to convey those same goods, must also be exempted otherwise it would be unfair. Otherwise it would be discrimination. Suppose the hon. member for Mooi River had a truck and he conveyed his own mealies from the farm gate to the silo, but I hired a truck and I also had my mealies conveyed by means of a contractor from the farm gate to the silo. In such a case my contractor must pay tax, and he determines his price accordingly while the hon. member, if he were to be exempted, would have a tax advantage. Surely that is discrimination. If one were to calculate what portion of a farmer’s total input is entailed in the little fuel which he uses to convey his product from the farm gate to the point where he has to deliver it, it will be found to be minimal. This will not, believe me, make one’s food cheaper, and even if it did, it would be so minimal that the consumer would not even realize it.

Reference was made by the hon. member for Yeoville to the gas which farmers buy in cylinders and on which they have to pay sales tax. Surely it is not only the farmers who use gas. I wonder whether the townspeople do not use even more gas. The farms of many of our fanners in the Western Cape have been provided with electricity, and gas consumption is minimal. One does not want unnecessary discrimination between various sectors and the sales tax is going to make very little difference to the cost inputs of the farmer.

On the role which sales tax plays in inflation, I want to tell you that it is one form of inflation which has the least inflammatory effect on inflation of all forms of tax. It is less inflationary because it is a unitary tax. Sales tax is levied only once and that is at the end of the production line. Consequently it cannot accumulate or build up. Moreover, this system has the advantage that it moves with the economy. That is important. As the consumer spending rises, the tax structure moves accordingly. That is why it is good and fair tax system. Our poor people are proud that they are also able to pay tax.

Oh!

It is true. Recently I was paying a visit to an old-age home where several of the inhabitants there told me, shortly after we had introduced this form of tax, that they welcomed this form of tax and that they paid it gladly. They said: “Now we know that we are also playing our part in contributing to the financing of the country.” One should not merely be negative in regard to matters of this kind.

With that I think I have dealt with most of the matters raised by hon. members of the Opposition, and we gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall be reasonably brief. Firstly, may I too add my congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance in his new task. We have known each other for many years in public life and it indeed pleases me to see him rise to the heights that he has. I hope that he will rise to further heights and that he will be successful in the very important task that he has before him.

Secondly, I wish to state that we will be supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mooi River. It meets with our approval; I just find it a little strange that all the pleas which have been made in this House on behalf of the farmers have been made by my friends on the left and have not been made by hon. members opposite. We in these benches have on many occasions espoused the need to come to the aid of farmers. This particular amendment relates to food itself, and because it relates to food it relates also to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yeoville, and amendment which goes to the very roots of what we are discussing now, with regard to the general sales tax.

In answer to the hon. member for Malmesbury I want to say that I agree with him. At this moment in time I do not think there is much point in going into the merits of the system. Last year the approach of the PFP was very clear. The basis of our argument was mainly that we did not want to tax the poor to the benefit of the rich. That was our approach, and this is in fact what happens when it comes to the general sales tax. Nevertheless, this system is now working and we have to face the situation in South Africa as it exists at the moment.

The hon. member for Malmesbury does not like the idea of removing the tax from essential foods. He says that it will be hard to distinguish. We advanced the idea last year, and we advance it again, that when we refer to essential foods we refer to bread, milk and maize products. When we see how difficult it is for people to make ends meet at present, we appreciate how necessary it is to come to their relief as far as this form of taxation is concerned. On the question of inflation, I believe it is a case of too much money chasing too few goods and it is this that causes the inflation and not the general sales tax itself. Therefore I do not believe that that argument is valid at all.

There is one further point I wish to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do not intend moving an amendment, but I hope that in his approach to the general sales tax he will give consideration to overseas visitors to South Africa by granting them an exemption from the general sales tax, provided that they produce their passports to show that they are bona fide visitors to South Africa, and to extend to them the same courtesy which is extended to us as visitors in other countries.

Then, with regard to the whole question of the general sales tax, I want to point out to the House something which might perhaps be an anomaly. I think it is something to which the hon. the Deputy Minister must give attention. Sales tax is obviously collected at many, many points and these points of tax collection have become agents for the Receiver of Revenue. The tax is payable once a month, usually towards the 16th of the month. That means that all the money that has been paid to the firm is being kept by that firm until the time is due for them to pay over that tax when they render a return on the 16th.

Let me illustrate this by way of an example. A supermarket with a turnover of about R500 000 per month, which is not unusual for a supermarket or a hypermarket, will have to pay about R20 000 per month in sales tax to the Government. It deposits that amount with its bank at a daily rate of interest. Until a few months ago that daily interest rate was 5%. This means that it would have received R25 000 back from the bank and would therefore have made a profit of R5 000 per month because it only paid R20 000 in general sales tax per month to the Government. Today this interest rate is a little less. Banks are now paying 3,5% interest on a daily basis. 3,5% of the total monthly turnover of R500 000 is R17 500. This means that as they are paying R20 000 in general sales tax to the Government, they will only have to pay in another R2 500 in addition to that accumulated interest of R17 500. That is money which is built in to the operations of the firm. In the case of a firm which operates on a smaller scale and which has a smaller turnover, one only reduces this proportion in the way I have mentioned.

The public of South Africa are gaining no advantage out of this whatsoever. In fact, the prices of items such as eggs, meat, fish, cheese and milk are soaring. These are prices the housewife still has to pay. How is the public going to derive any benefit out of this? I do not know whether I have the solution for it. There are two ways in which it could possibly be done. Firstly, the Government might like to consider what could be done. I do not deny that this is a normal practice. I want to refer, for example, to shares which are over-subscribed on the first issue. The first issue of certain shares was oversubscribed 19 or 20 times a little while ago. In three weeks they had accumulated sufficient interest to pay for the whole issue and possibly also for the legal costs of the whole flotation. Well, good luck to them. However, has the time not come for these firms to which I have referred, to reduce their prices to such an extent that the consumers will benefit from that amount they have made out of sales tax by investing their monthly sales tax takings at an interest rate of 3,5%? I hope that in the light of the high costs and the inflation this appeal to firms to come to the rescue of the consumers will not fall on deaf ears.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members who participated in this debate. I think the debate was conducted on a good level. Various hon. members made good contributions.

First of all I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville and say that I am grateful that he conveyed such fine sentiments to the officials of the Department of Inland Revenue for the special effort which they had made, and also for the fact that the door of those officials was always open to the negotiation with the private sector, with the result that many problems were solved in that way to the satisfaction of everyone.

The hon. member expressed his concern at the fact that there are certain categories of people who are not discharging their obligations in respect of general sales tax. He referred in particular to people who take taxable goods for their own use although those goods are earmarked for the final consumer. This is of course an evasion of this tax. He also said that there were certain traders whose turnover began to drop after the introduction of sales tax. Apparently tax was evaded by making use of cash transactions. I agree with the hon. member. One is perturbed at this. One feels that everyone must do his duty in respect of general sales tax. Perhaps we should ask the department to give particular attention to cases of this kind and where possible apply stricter control.

†A number of hon. members have made a plea as far as general sales tax on basic foods is concerned. In considering the possible exclusion …

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville informed me that he was not feeling well and would not be here tonight. However, I shall deal with his speech in his absence. He asked about the duty-free shops at airports, etc. The duty to which the hon. member referred is the excise duty imposed in terms of the Customs and Excise Act. Sales tax is payable whenever goods are acquired by a consumer or a user. The sale of goods exported from the Republic is exempted from the tax. However, it is important to note than the amended definition of “exported” being inserted in section 1 of the Act by clause l(l)(d) of the Bill makes it clear that except in regard to registrable goods, the exemption only applies if the goods are sold and consigned or sold and delivered by the seller to the purchaser at an address outside the Republic. The sales of the duty-free shops are concluded and the purchaser takes possession of the goods in South Africa. For this reason such sales cannot be regarded as exports.

The hon. member also said that there should be only one method of collection and not two. I want to tell the hon. member that I am of the opinion that this will come about in time. We have just seen that one of the biggest retailers in the country has switched to another method as the result of experience gained. At this time there is a ratio of 60-40 between the add-on and add-in systems. Therefore, a large section of the public might feel aggrieved if a change is forced upon them at this stage.

*The hon. member for Paarl referred to that. It is very clear that as time passes and traders gain more experience in this connection, only one system will ultimately be adopted. At this stage, however, it might perhaps be unwise to enforce only one system. I think one should first give the traders a chance to consider matters. Wisdom will come in time.

The hon. member also raised the question of gas. I just want to say that farmers may buy gas in bulk and utilize it for production. That is tax-free. I should also like to mention that sales tax has to be paid on gas in cylinders. This applies not only to farmers but to others as well.

†The hon. member also said that basic foodstuffs should be exempted from general sales tax. I have to reply to this argument, and apologize for taking up so much time. In considering the possible exclusion, from the ambit of the tax, of what is popularly referred to as basic foods, one is immediately confronted with the problem of defining exactly what this term means. It is a fact that many of the items usually mentioned in this regard are freely available in a great variety of forms, some of which could hardly ever be considered anything but luxuries. This is where the problem lies, because what one person might regard as a luxury, his neighbour may, for equally valid reasons, deem to be an absolute necessity. While the imposition of the tax on the sale of foodstuffs can never be lightly considered, it is nevertheless also essential, in considering the matter, to bear in mind the fundamental philosophy underlying sales tax. In this regard it must be borne in mind that taxes are not imposed as punitive measures, but merely to obtain the funds required for budgetary purposes. In common with other taxes, the introduction of a general sales tax had, as one of its principal objectives, to ensure that the tax is levied at the lowest possible rate that would yield the required revenue. To achieve this it is imperative that the tax be founded on the broadest possible base, and accordingly exemptions or exclusions from the tax must be restricted to the barest minimum.

A further point that has to be borne in mind is the fact that essentially the tax must be collected by persons engaged in commercial and industrial enterprises, people who, as a rule, are not trained tax experts. To avoid accounting and especially identification problems to which I have already referred, problems inherent in any commodity-based tax, it is essential that the tax be levied at a uniform rate in respect of all transactions with end-consumers or end-users and that the system be uncomplicated and easily administered. In this way the cost of collection is cut to the lowest possible level, and the possibility of traders passing on excessive additional administrative costs to the consumers, in the form of price increases, is also greatly reduced. From the nature of things a person has a lot of sympathy with such a plea, but unfortunately it is a matter which cannot be handled easily. For argument’s sake I should, in conclusion, just like to mention that a study conducted some time ago by the Bureau for Market Research at Unisa has shown that on average a Black man earning R1 272 per annum spends only R257,11 or 20% of his total income on food. What is most significant, however, is the fact that of this amount only R126,80 is related to the purchase of those commodities falling within the categories of so-called basic foodstuffs. Accordingly the tax payable on those purchases would add only R5,07 per annum or 42c a month to that man’s expenditure. I hope that deals with the hon. member’s argument.

Can the hon. the Deputy Minister please repeat the amount earned by that person?

According to this study by Unisa, on average a Black man earning R1 272 per annum spends only R257,11 or 20% of his total income on food. Of that only R126,80 relates to the purchase of basic foodstuffs. So, in the end it amounts to an increase of 42c a month for the average Black family, and I think that satisfactorily replies to the hon. member’s argument.

*I want to refer next to the hon. member for Paarl, and thank him for his kind words. I just want to say that I have learnt a great deal from him. When I came to Parliament, he was chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and in that capacity he rendered a very valuable service to the House. On the basis of the hon. member’s sound arguments and the good plea which he put forward here that pallets and binding material should be exempted from general sales tax because they are used by the agricultural sector in particular for the packing and exporting of fruit, I shall propose a suitable amendment during the Committee Stage. I want to thank the hon. member sincerely for the constructive plea which he put forward in this connection. Then, too, I shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage on the levying of general sales tax on consular staff.

The hon. member for Mooi River advocated that the diesel fuel which farmers use for the conveyance of their products from their farms to the co-operative or to the point of delivery, should be exempted from general sales tax. This relates to that portion of the fuel on which farmers have to pay general sales tax and which is not exempted at present. In the first place I want to say that I have a great deal of sympathy for this matter. Perhaps one could look at it again. The problem we are faced with, however, is that we have the case here that one cannot favour one group at the expense of another. The problem lies therein that some farmers make use of contractors to convey their produce to the harbour, the co-operative or the market. That contractor pays general sales tax on the fuel which he uses for the conveyance of the produce. Consequently, if one exempts the farmer who conveys his own produce to the co-operative, one is giving him an unfair advantage over the cartage contractor. Therefore, although I am very sympathetic in this matter, I cannot accept an amendment in that connection at this stage.

The hon. member for Malmesbury raised a very important point, i.e. that the tax collector cannot control everything. It is true that to a large extent tax is a question of confidence and faith—confidence in the taxpayers that they will finish their returns faithfully. I am pleased to be able to say that this is very much the case in South Africa because our people are inherently honest. There will always be the bad eggs, the tax-dodgers, and for that reason we have given the Secretary certain powers in this legislation to give him the muzzle with which to act against taxdodgers.

Owing to the lack of time I cannot reply to the arguments and requests of all the hon. members, but I give an undertaking to the effect that the department will look into all the requests and in due course provide the hon. members concerned with replies.

Mr. Speaker, may I please ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? I should just like the hon. the Deputy Minister please to react to a statement made by the hon. member for Malmesbury. He said that it had been his experience that the poor people of South Africa are so pleased now that the Government, by way of sales tax, is also going to afford them an opportunity of contributing to the State coffers. [Interjections.] I should just like to know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister agrees with that statement. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, surely that is not a question. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

No Hennie, do not try to help him now. Let him get out of it himself. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to give the hon. member for Bryanston a piece of good advice.

Tell him he must resign. [Interjections.]

There is one thing we in South Africa should be careful of and that is not to stir up ill-feeling between the haves and the have-nots. That is a dangerous thing to do. The hon. member for Bryanston knows very well why I am saying that it is dangerous. The Government is absolutely sympathetically disposed towards the lesser privileged people in this country. I believe that we are illustrating that sympathy by way of subsidies in the sphere of housing, and in many other areas where we assist the lesser privileged people. Of course, I should not like to refer now to those who are mentally less privileged. Of course there is nothing we can do about that. [Interjections.]

We have of course expanded the base of taxation in South Africa very considerably. After all, all of us ought to realize that we must pay something when we demand services. That is simply a fact of life. In that way one can, besides, afford relief to that small group of people who are the real entrepreneurs, those who bring about growth and the development of employment opportunities in the country. One should not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. That is why each of us in this country ought to make a small contribution, even if it is only, as I indicated earlier, 42 cents a month in some cases—because it is necessary for each one of us in South Africa to play his part.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 28, in line 7, after “immunity”, to insert “or privileges”;
2. (2) on page 28, in line 15, after “immunity”, to insert “or privileges”.

The reason for these amendments is to make it possible for members of the consular corps to enjoy the tax relief which is at present being enjoyed by the diplomatic corps. There is a technical difference between diplomatic and consular staff. The former, namely the diplomatic staff, enjoy immunity under our Diplomatic Privileges Act, while members of the consular corps are granted diplomatic privileges. Where an equal degree of relief from sales tax is granted to South African consular and diplomatic officers in another country, provision is now being made for reciprocal relief to be granted to consular and diplomatic officials and missions in South Africa.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The hon. member for Paarl drew attention to the fact that although the amended clause makes provision for packaging or wrapping material, holders and pallets, utilized for the marketing of farming produce, it does not make provision for binding or tying material. This matter is now being rectified here.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to move as an amendment—

I should like to motivate this amendment to the hon. the Minister. We hope that this would have the effect of preventing any hardship which may be caused by the proposed legislation. In the Second Reading debate we listened with interest to the hon. the Minister’s motivation. I want to say that we appreciate and understand the problem that has arisen as a result of people residing in these areas. We have no major problem with the hon. the Minister’s motivation in this regard, because we can understand that it was never the intention that these people should, in fact, reside there. We do not believe the number of people involved is large, but we accept the point and shall not be fighting it.

What I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider is the fact that with the promulgation of the Act in 1977 people started commercial undertakings in certain of these industrial areas, and at present certain numbers of them are continuing with those undertakings. We believe it should not be the intention of the legislation to deny those people who are there the right to make the living they are making. We further accept that it is reasonable to assume that we should not allow more people to abuse this loophole which has been found. We are just asking the hon. the Minister to accept the fact that certain people have commercial undertakings in these industrial areas and to see to it that people do not suffer hardship and are not deprived of something they have acquired as a result of a loophole in the Act that was passed two years ago. I believe it is a reasonable request, and I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to consider it. I have sent a copy of my amendment to the hon. the Minister. As we are now nearing the end of the session and time is limited, I did not have time to place it on the Order Paper. However, I ask the hon. the Minister to consider it. If he finds the wording unacceptable, I should like him to indicate whether he is prepared to have a look at this particular aspect. We see what he is aiming at and can understand his motivation, but I want to make the point that people who are already there should not suffer hardship. I should therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister to comment on that case and perhaps give us an indication of where his sympathies lie.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member sent his amendment to me just before he rose to speak. Allow me to explain. If people have obtained rights since 1977, they could only have obtained them because there was a loophole in this legislation of which they have made use. With respect, I do not think it is the function of this House to protect people who circumvent the law. Secondly, I want to say that the motivation for the amendment in 1977 was the result of a recommendation of the Erika Theron Commission. At that stage a whole debate was conducted concerning the possibility of exempting industrial areas that did not lie within group areas from a colour restriction in regard to acquisition, sale or occupation. That is why the amendment the hon. member has now moved is not acceptable at this stage. However, I want to refer the hon. member to the concepts embodied in the White Paper on the utilization of manpower, which also refer to business areas. I wonder whether it would not be more advisable for us rather to have an in-depth discussion of the concept that forms the basis of his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, strangely enough, at this stage it is necessary to indicate precisely what this whole issue is about, because up to now there seems to have been uncertainty in the minds of various speakers, particularly on the other side. In 1977, section 49A was passed, restricting the scope of the Group Areas Act in the sense that the restrictive sections would not be applicable in industrial areas. In the nature of the matter, hon. members will understand why this party supported that measure. This new legislation imposes a restriction on that restriction that was introduced in 1977. It effects a narrower definition of the restriction effected by section 49A. We know that it was not the intention of the Government in 1977 to permit the situation that has now arisen. We know that it was not the intention that a loophole should occur in the Group Areas Act as regards housing and business purposes. But now we do at least expect that the hon. Minister should understand why we are unable to support this legislation. The hon. the Minister accused me of advancing contradictory arguments.

That is so, after all.

No, they are not contradictory. They are by no means contradictory. I say that section 49A imposed a restriction on the scope of the Act and this legislation, in turn, effects a far narrower definition of that exception. After all, this is going in the opposite direction, and it is therefore to be understood that we are unable to give our support to this step at this stage. It is in the first place a standpoint taken on principle, because we are fundamentally opposed to the principal Act. We regard it as an oppressive and dangerous measure and as one which causes a great deal of harm. Secondly, one must bear in mind its practical effect as the hon. member for Berea and I myself have indicated. In terms of housing and commercial activities, people made use of this loophole that existed in the Act. I want to say at once that if any person in South Africa makes use of a loophole in race legislation at this stage, I should not take it amiss of him. Under no circumstances would I take it amiss of him. The laws are restrictive in the extreme and inhibiting in the extreme and create tremendous problems for people. I cannot take it amiss of a man, then, if he seeks a loophole in that legislation in an attempt to make his own circumstances tenable within the existing framework of laws. As regards the practical effect and the aspect of the principle of this legislation, we cannot support it under any circumstances. As regards the amendment of the hon. member for Berea, I want to say that it has an extremely limiting effect, but we shall be prepared to give it our support. However, I want to say at once that even if the hon. the Minister were to accept it, we should still certainly not be able to support the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point did not take his argument any further and it remains just as contradictory as it was yesterday. The amendment of the hon. member for Berea at least has merit, because he made a specific proposal. However, I believe the hon. member is prepared to accept that we should rather consider it when we consider the White Paper and the amending legislation which is still to come. Let us just be reasonable for a moment. Section 49A was never intended to create alternative housing opportunities.

I did not say that.

Give me a chance now. After all, I did not interrupt the hon. member. Basically, what the hon. member’s argument amounts to is that because there was a lack of definition in the formulation of section 49A in 1977, due to the zoning within a municipal area, we must now make the omission the rule.

Precisely.

I am not speaking to the hon. member for Berea now, but to the hon. member for Green Point. If we were to permit this to remain as the hon. member wants it to remain, we should have the worst slum conditions that have ever existed in certain areas. Therefore, all the hon. member for Green Point is doing is creating another opportunity for widespread and total exploitation of people who want to live in slum conditions. I cannot understand the hon. member’s argument…

[Inaudible.]

I do not take any notice of that hon. member. He should rather go and howl outside.

Just calm down.

What the hon. member’s whole argument amounts to is that we must permit people to occupy areas lacking in proper residential facilities, and to top it all, he does so in such a way as to give the impression that he is championing the rights of those people. I want to ask the hon. member in all fairness: Why should we not be satisfied with the aims we had in mind when we inserted the provision in the legislation in 1977? Why do we not keep our arguments—I concede that there could be valid arguments—about the standpoints on principle adopted with regard to the Group Areas Act, for an occasion when we can debate them properly and within the rules of this House? The hon. member should be grateful that there is a Group Areas Act, because if there had not been one, he would not have had a seat.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is making statements that are totally without foundation, statements that simply do not hold water. Let us look at the present situation, and also at the effect that this legislation will have on the people involved. The situation is, quite simply, that in certain areas a large number of people are living who, due to the implementation of this legislation, will now be ejected from those areas. This provision is going to be used to kick thousands of people out of their existing accommodation … [Interjections.]

How many people?

Let us ask the hon. the Minister how many people are affected by it.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. I am speaking now. Will the hon. the Minister please sit…

You are talking nonsense.

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. the Minister is going to get an opportunity to reply to the statements I am making. I should very much like him to indicate, when he replies, how many people belonging to the various race groups are affected by this provision. The hon. the Minister is not listening to what I am saying, but is sitting and talking to another hon. Minister. [Interjections.] I am prepared to resume my seat until the hon. Minister is prepared and ready to listen to what I have to say. [Interjections.] It seems as if the hon. the Minister is not aware of the situation and that he now has to go and learn from the hon. the Minister of National Education.

Carry on with your nagging.

The hon. the Minister brought legislation to the House …

Order! I shall be obliged to name members if they continue in this way. I call for order in the House. The hon. members must now afford the hon. member the opportunity to complete his speech. The hon. member may proceed.

[Inaudible.]

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said you must chase the hon. member out. [Interjections.]

Order!

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to listen to what I am saying. The effect of the provision contained in clause 1 will be that the lives of a large number of people will be drastically affected. I should like to know from him whether, before he came up with this legislation, he determined precisely how many people from each race group would be affected by this legislation and in what circumstances they are living. In other words, has the hon. the Minister made any effort to determine what the situation is before coming forward with this legislation? Now he asks me how many people are affected by it. I do not know. There are many people who are affected by it.

He is just laughing.

I am laughing at you.

Yes, that is his approach. A moment ago he was sitting and listening to the hon. Minister sitting next to him. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, the hon. the Minister sitting next to him is the hon. the Minister who said that he slept much better now that these thousands of people had been kicked out of their houses. That is what causes him to sleep well.

Name me 10 of these thousands. Name me three of them.

It seems to me that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is also going to sleep better now. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister made any effort to determine precisely to what extent the lives of these people will be affected by the implementation of this legislation. As I see the position and as I know it on the Witwatersrand, for example …

You know nothing.

… there are areas that will be affected by this … [Interjections.] For example there are blocks of flats in those areas, and Indians and Coloureds are living in those blocks of flats. There is nothing wrong with that housing. It complies with certain basic requirements. In the first place, it is good housing. Indeed, it is far better housing than would otherwise be available for those people. There are thousands of people for whom there is no housing. The hon. the Minister opposite said that he did not know whether there was a shortage of housing for Coloureds and Indians on the Witwatersrand.

That is a lie. Are you not ashamed of yourself?

I can tell you, Sir, that there is indeed a shortage. There is a tremendous shortage of housing for Coloureds and Indians. When housing is available for them, often it is situated at tremendous distances from the places where they work or where they want to establish business undertakings or factories. Does the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs realize what tremendous distances Coloureds, Indians and Black people have to travel to get to their places of employment and what expense this involves? [Interjections.] Hon. members might as well listen for a moment. They will learn something if they listen. Just like the White people, these people would like to live as close as possible to the places where they work or where they have their factories. Now there are people who have the opportunity to live in these blocks of flats and other housing as close as possible to their places of employment or the factories they own. The effect of this legislation will be that those people will be kicked out. That is precisely what this provision means.

That is not true.

As soon as this provision appears on the Statute Book, the officials of the Government will immediately be obliged to kick those people out of their housing, and will have to do so under circumstances in which the Government has made no alternative housing available for them or, if there is in fact alternative housing, it is situated far from their places of employment.

Those are wild allegations.

Therefore those people are being drastically affected thereby. Their transport costs and the circumstances in which they live are being affected drastically. However the hon. the Minister made no effort to determine exactly what the position was before coming to this House with this ill-considered legislation. The Government is constantly saying—the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development has just said it in America—that they are going to remove all forms of race discrimination in South Africa. [Interjections.] That hon. Minister gave a clear exposition of PFP policy in America, and argued that it was the policy of the NP. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking specifically about this clause. [Interjections.] What the provision in this clause amounts to is a negation of the so-called new spirit of goodwill and tolerance which the Government of South Africa wants to present to the outside world. The Government can do what it likes, they can send their whole Cabinet abroad for a full year, and they will still get nowhere while they continue with this kind of legislation. [Interjections.] The drastic, gross effect of this, the discrimination, the cruelty and the inhumanity contained in just this one clause—let alone the array of other laws of this Government—is enough to destroy and demolish completely everything the Government is trying to do in order to create a new spirit and a new impression. [Interjections.]

We appeal to the Government in all seriousness now to come forward with a brand-new apartheid measure in this new spirit and in this new period, not to begin to apply apartheid where there is at present no apartheid. [Interjections.] That is all they are doing. This clause is a brand-new drastic apartheid measure which will implement apartheid and disrupt people’s lives; it will quite probably disrupt the lives of thousands of Coloureds and Indians, in circumstances and at places where this did not occur in the past. [Interjections.] I now ask in all seriousness … [Interjections.]

Order!

We ask on behalf of South Africa … [Interjections.]

Order!

On behalf of South Africa, and in the interests of South Africa, we ask … [Interjections.] Yes, go ahead and shout abuse. You do not care two hoots about the interests of South Africa. [Interjections.] South Africa’s interests mean nothing to you. [Interjections.] All you are interested in is your old ideology of apartheid. [Interjections.] That is all you are interested in. Apartheid is the only thing that is of any importance to you. I now ask you on behalf of South Africa, and on behalf of all its people … [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order … [Interjections.]

Order!

Oh, really, Mr. Chairman, I do not have time …

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston must refer to hon. members in the correct terms. In this House it is not just “you” and “them”.

He is just a scoundrel! [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North say?

Mr. Chairman, I said that he was a filthy, dirty scoundrel. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw them, but that is what he is. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words unconditionally.

I withdraw them.

The hon. member for Bryanston may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, let me conclude. I really mean it honestly and sincerely when I say that I ask on behalf of South Africa and in the interests of South Africa that the hon. the Minister delete this clause. At this stage he cannot permit a new apartheid measure to stymy the efforts of the Government to bring about better race relations in South Africa and project a better image of South Africa abroad. I ask you please to withdraw it. [Interjections.]

He is saying “you” again.

Order! The hon. member is not abiding by my ruling. It is not “you” and “them”. It is hon. members. The forms of address “you” and “them” are not to be used in this House. Will the hon. member please rectify that?

Mr. Chairman, I apologize. It is because I feel so friendly towards certain hon. members opposite that I overstepped the mark somewhat. However, I apologize. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North must please also apologize to the hon. member for Bryanston for what he called him earlier on. I have no alternative. I must direct him to apologize.

I apologize to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to react again to one or two of the accusations levelled at us by the hon. the Minister in the course of the discussion. He intimated that we wanted people to live in slum conditions. This is not the first time that this accusation has been levelled at members of my party when the subject under discussion has been housing matters. Our standpoint has always been as we stated it during the discussion of this Bill, viz. that if alternative housing is available, it changes the situation very drastically. Just to show how false and meaningless the whole argument is under these circumstances, may I point out that all that this amendment to the Group Areas Act is going to achieve, is that a Black man or a Coloured may now no longer move onto the premises of a White man in an industrial area, or that a White man may not move into a Coloured’s premises in an industrial area. This does not affect the fact that a White man can move into a White man’s premises or a Coloured into a Coloured’s premises. Therefore, when the hon. the Minister talks about slums, he must not do so to motivate this amendment, because it has nothing whatever to do with it. If the Act, with this amendment, was the only measure that applied and there was no such thing as municipal regulations and municipal town planning schemes, then the only restriction would be on a racial basis. It would have nothing whatsoever to do with slum conditions and it would have nothing whatsoever to do with housing. It would be purely a question of race, and it is on that basis that we oppose this Bill on principle, and also for the very practical consideration that people are already living in industrial areas. I do not believe people like living in industrial areas. They live there only because their alternatives are extremely limited or totally non-existent.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the amendment that we have moved so that it is not overlooked in the heated words which have flown in this debate during the past few minutes. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that I do not really mind what wording he uses or how he does it, but I would like to see that the effect of what we are doing is to see to it that a person or persons may occupy industrial premises for commercial purposes by consent, whether it be by special consent or any other form of consent, of a planning authority to which the hon. the Minister referred when he replied to me on the first occasion. I should like the hon. the Minister to indicate that he is sympathetic to that viewpoint, because I think that that is the issue. One can make politics out of this issue, but I believe we made our position absolutely clear during the Second Reading debate. Nobody is in any doubt as to where the NRP stands on this issue. We did not support the Second Reading of this Bill. But, when that is said and done, I believe it is our duty to try and improve the effect of what is going to happen. I therefore most earnestly put it to the hon. the Minister that I should ask him to consider what I have said, not to get lost in the political fervour of the debate and please to see to it that the final effect of this clause is that people are not hard done by and do not suffer unnecessarily.

Mr. Chairman, this evening the hon. member for Bryanston stood up with a pious expression and said that he was making a plea in the interests of South Africa. I was most amazed to hear that from that hon. member, because when has he ever made a speech in the interests of South Africa? It has never happened up to now. His criterion for the legislation is that we should consider what happens to the people who have done things illegally and that we should then not introduce legislation. What is this other than a policy of laissez-faire, viz., of letting things slide? It does not matter what effect it has on South Africa. The hon. member will pluck the bitter fruits if he permits this kind of thing to carry on happening. Consequently I want to say to the hon. member that he is not sincere when he says that he is speaking on behalf of South Africa. It may be in the interests of the PFP, but it is not in the interests of South Africa. I want to remind the hon. member for Bryanston that he made a speech in this House on 30 May 1977, and I refer him to column 8873 of Hansard, Volume 69, and that afternoon he did not say a word about occupation. He was very pleased that legislation was being passed for industrial purposes and this evening he made a plea that we should permit the people who want to use the industrial areas to live in, to continue to do so. That is why I say with all respect that the hon. member for Bryanston is not sincere when he champions the cause of these people this evening.

I can understand the argument of the PFP when they say that we should not make things difficult for people by implementing the Act, but surely it is wrong for the hon. member for Bryanston to adopt the standpoint that because we want this legislation adopted this evening, we are going to kick out everyone in those areas tomorrow. May I remind the hon. member for Bryanston of Crossroads? Where does he come with the story that we are going to make peoples’ lives difficult tomorrow, that we are simply going to eject them, kick them out without a roof over their heads? It is the standpoint of this side of the House that we shall act in a humane and civilized way and that we shall do so at all times. However, we cannot permit things simply to take a course in South Africa which will simply give rise to chaotic conditions. It is the duty of the legislature, and it is the duty of this side of the House, to see to it that we set these matters straight and that we place them on an absolutely sound basis. That is why it is necessary that we should pass this legislation for the sake of good order, and for that reason I take pleasure in supporting it.

Mr. Chairman, I shall do my best to bring the debate back to the provisions of the clause that we are now considering. This particular section 49A in the Group Areas Act, in its motivation and in its formulation, purported to do nothing more than enable various population groups to obtain rights in industrial areas if they do not fall into a proclaimed group area. Due to shortcomings in the formulation, a general zoning took place in the jurisdiction of the local authorities and this enabled people to reside in industrial areas, using them for residential purposes. This amendment is by no means in conflict with the aim of section 49A and what we want to achieve with it On the contrary, the authority that identified the problem in the first instance with the Department of Planning was the city council of Johannesburg. They came to speak to the present hon. Minister of National Education personally when he was Deputy Minister of Planning, and consequently this legislation is nothing but the outcome of a problem situation which occurred due to people who, as the hon. member for Green Point said, used the omission in the legislation in question for purposes other than that for which it was intended.

Mr. Chairman, you must excuse me for not replying to the hon. member for Bryanston, because he made statements this evening that were far removed from the truth. Firstly, he accused the hon. the Minister of Community Development of having supposedly maintained that he was not aware of housing shortages in the country. That is a lie. [Interjections.] Yes, it is a lie.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to use that word?

Of course! [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon. the Minister say was a lie?

I said that the hon. member’s accusation that the hon. the Minister of Community Development had supposedly said that he was not aware of the housing shortage, was a lie.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, are you not prepared …

Order! Did the hon. the Minister say that the hon. member had told a lie?

I said that the hon. member made two statements and that he had told a lie when he maintained that the hon. the Minister of Community Development said that he was not aware of the housing shortage.

That is an untruth.

Of course it is a lie. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may say that the hon. member told an untruth but he must withdraw the word “lie”.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw that and accordingly say that the hon. member told an untruth.

That is better.

Secondly, the hon. member for Bryanston said that there were thousands of people who would be denied their homes in terms of this Bill. I maintain that the hon. member has not a shred of evidence to support that statement. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that thousands of people would be left homeless as a result of this Bill.

How many are there?

That is not the point. I am replying to the hon. member’s arguments.

In other words, you also do not know.

Since the hon. member is not prepared to address hon. members in the form prescribed by the rules of the House, I am not going to reply to his arguments further.

Mr. Chairman, I want to get back to the difficulties which have been mentioned by the hon. the Minister. I think the hon. the Minister is big enough not to act out of pique and to realize that what we on this side of the House are doing …

Order! Is the hon. member raising a point of order?

No, Sir, I am making a speech.

The hon. member is speaking about things which are not related to the Bill. The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I am speaking to the clause. I have said that I believe that the hon. the Minister is big enough not to act out of pique and to deal with the merits of this clause. The argument that was raised here that we are dealing …

It was not an argument, but a stream of untruths.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development, whom I think knows Johannesburg even better than I do …

That is the first truth of the day. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Community Development will be able to tell the Minister who is handling this that we are dealing with an area which is zoned “general”. A certain case, in its judgment, said that one of the reasons why this must be brought about, was the fact that certain areas in Johannesburg were zoned “general”. It specifically referred to the areas in the Jeppe and Fordsburg parts of Johannesburg. Will the hon. the Minister deny that there must be hundreds of these families living in these areas?

Now you are exaggerating hopelessly, and you know it.

How many do you say are then living there?

[Inaudible.]

Well, then keep quiet. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Bryanston has correctly pointed out that those people are not there illegally, as the hon. member for Aliwal has maintained, but lawfully. The moment this provision is put into effect the occupation will be illegal. That is the difference. That is what this clause is all about. The gap in the law as it stands should be welcomed by hon. members on that side of the House as a means for achieving better relations with the Coloured and Indian people who have no alternative accommodation. Lenasia is full and the Indian community does not have accommodation there. The Coloureds cannot get accommodation at the moment either. [Interjections.]

Order!

We are not only forcing them out of their homes. The hon. the Minister of Community Development will know of the Indian family in a tent on a pavement in Mayfair.

They were not sleeping there. [Interjections.] You do not know what you are talking about. [Interjections.]

They were in a tent, camping there to demonstrate the plight of those Coloured and Indian people in Johannesburg who do not have alternative accommodation. We feel very strongly about that. [Interjections.] In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister not only said that it applied to Johannesburg as a result of a court judgment, but that it would apply to other areas as well. So they are, in fact, now getting other local authorities to act against these people as well.

Let us face the situation. If one contravenes a town planning ordinance, there is an applicable penalty clause. People can be fined and sentenced. If there is any contravention, the local authority will take action accordingly. However, what the hon. the Minister is trying to do, is to impose very heavy and severe penalties, in terms of the Group Areas Act, on these people. Therefore we cannot possibly support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to reply to the questions of the hon. member for Hillbrow. Like other hon. members, he failed entirely to see the purpose of the legislation. I want to ask the hon. member, in all fairness, where in this legislation he finds a provision imposing a restriction only on certain population groups. [Interjections.] I do not want to quarrel with the hon. member this evening. [Interjections.]

If it is not …

The hon. member must please give me a chance now, because I listened to him carefully. Let me repeat slowly that the provision we are considering arises out of a recommendation of the Erika Theron Commission. It is laid down in broad terms that in industrial areas we must not make the population group the determining factor as regards who may possess or live on property for industrial purposes.

For industrial purposes!

For industrial purposes. The Government accepted that recommendation and submitted it to Parliament in the form of legislation. This was section 49A. Due to a loophole in the legislation people used this law to occupy land for purposes other than industrial purposes in an area zoned for general purposes in terms of a town planning scheme or schemes, a zoning which therefore included the right of occupation. That is the point. All the proposed legislation does is to set forth correctly the true intention of the House when it accepted the amendment of 1977.

Now the second point. The local authority within whose area of jurisdiction the specific area falls to which the hon. member for Hillbrow referred, was one of the first to approach the Department of Planning and say that due to the fact that there was a shortcoming in the 1977 Act, the department should please take steps to rectify the Act so that the intention of the legislation could be reflected in the Act. That is what we are dealing with. I really do not wish to quarrel with the hon. members, but the fact is that these people are being exploited by unscrupulous owners of properties. [Interjections.] Can we not let reason triumph over the emotions being aroused by other considerations? That is all that is stated by this legislation. Now I want to come back to what the hon. member for Berea said. I have no objection to his standpoint that we must consider that there should be compensation where, apart from industrial activities, people can also carry on commercial activities. All I said to him was that the consideration of the legislation before us was not the occasion on which to achieve that aim. I take it the hon. member has not yet had an opportunity to read the White Paper on the Riekert report. The hon. member will find that the principle that there may be certain areas where there can also be zonings for commercial purposes for the various population groups, is accepted in this specific White Paper. In all fairness, the White Paper also issues an instruction to the local authority in whose area of jurisdiction such an area may be situated, to express an opinion. This is purely in the spirit of what the hon. member has in mind. The Government has accepted the concept of such areas. In the nature of the matter, my successors in this particular regard, when they have to implement the White Paper, will come forward with legislation, and when they do that we can duly debate this concept advanced by the hon. member. I do not think we should use this rectifying amendment to section 49A as a peg on which to hang other ideological arguments.

Mr. Chairman, we go back to the areas Jeppe and Fordsburg. These are not, in terms of the Group Areas Act, declared for occupation by either Coloured people or Indians. I want to point out differences in the law. In terms of town planning laws certain areas can be zoned as general, industrial or special residential areas. The area of Jeppe is zoned “general” and in terms of the town planning scheme this entitles industrial rights to fall under “general”. A White person may stay there because it is a White area in terms of the Group Areas Act. In terms of clause 49A in which it is referred to as an industrial area, Coloureds and Indians may live there and carry out industry. At the moment that is not a breach of the Group Areas Act, but it will be if this amendment should come into force. White people will, however, be living there, but not in breach of the Act, because the area is not a group area other than for Whites.

Apparently the hon. member was not listening when we discussed the Second Reading. Section 49A, which amended the Group Areas Act in 1977, refers to industrial areas situated outside a group area. It makes those particular areas controlled areas. The intention here was merely that those areas should be free for all races for industrial purposes. I do not wish to argue about this because we are not engaged in a housing debate at the moment. All that happened was that in carrying out the recommendations of the report that was accepted, we wanted to give the people the opportunity to take part in industrial activities. I want to make the accusation today that the owners of premises there misused the misfortunes of others to enrich themselves. In my opinion this is a scandal. Finally—and I want to let this suffice—the authority concerned, the city council of Johannesburg, controlled the circumstances which became more and more prevalent there. I think that we should express our disapproval of people exploiting the problems of other people to enrich themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

To begin with, I want to express my regret for introducing this legislation at such a late stage of the session. As hon. members are aware, the Board of Trade and Industries, at my request, completed an investigation into the tariff policy and the tariff structure in respect of the provision of electricity in South Africa. The board’s report No. 1889 was laid on the table by me on 4 April 1979.

The recommendations of the board, together with the commentary of various bodies on those recommendations, are being studied at present and it is anticipated that they will be submitted to the Government during the recess for a final decision. Depending on the decisions of the Government with regard to the board’s recommendations, there are certain aspects which should receive attention at present. Meanwhile there are certain amendments to the Electricity Act, 1958, which are not contrary to the recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industries, and which are necessary for good administration of the legislation and for which provision is being made in this Bill. These provisions include the following:

Clause 1:

It is proposed that the present requirement of the Act that one member of the Electricity Supply Commission should be in the fultime employ of the commission, be deleted. This complicates the effective composition of the commission. In this regard I want to explain that where the present provision makes it compulsory that one of the members of the Electricity Supply Commission must be an official of the commission, an official will still be able to be a member, but it is now permissible, and not a compulsory provision.

Clause 2:

Under section 4A of the Act the commission has the power at present to supply electricity in large quantities to a foreign recipient at any point on the border. The proposed amendment means that any future agreement for the supply of electricity by the commission in this regard, is subject to prior consent by the Minister.

†Clause 3:

One of the basic principles of the Companies Act, 1973, is that of publication of information for the benefit of interested persons. This clause provides that in addition to the balance sheet and income statement to be furnished by the commission, it should now also furnish a statement of the source and application of its funds and that all these statements should as far as may be determined by the commission be in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973.

Clause 4:

In clause 4 it is proposed that the present membership of the Electricity Control Board be increased from five to seven person. In this regard I can only say that in the Government’s opinion the board’s membership should also include persons with the qualifications referred to in clause 4 for the proper performance of its important task.

Mr. Speaker, we have no particular objection to this Bill. I must, however, mention the fact that this Bill only reached us this morning. Therefore there was not very much time to make an in-depth study of the Bill. Nevertheless the hon. the Minister’s intention is quite clear. He described it as an interim measure to give effect to certain arrangements so that other recommendations can also be implemented.

In the first instance, we accept clause 1, which seeks to amend section 2 of the Electricity Act by deleting subsection (4). The effect of this is that the Minister can appoint people to the Electricity Supply Commission who do not necessarily have to be in the full time employ of the commission. This gives the hon. the Minister more freedom with regard to appointments and in the present circumstances I think this is expedient.

†Clause 2 seeks to amend section 4A of the principal Act. There is very little difference actually effected by this, except in the sense that the powers of the commission will now be carried out to a larger extent subject to the approval of the Minister. I believe this is an improvement, bearing in mind the extended powers which the commission is now exercising. These relate to such matters as the supply of electricity to the Industrial Development Corporation at the border of South West Africa, the supply of electricity to neighbouring territories and to other matters which I think would be better done under the supervision and with the knowledge of the Minister, since they affect relations which go outside and beyond the competence of the Electricity Supply Commission itself. To the extent that section 4A of the principal Act is to be amended in this sense, we have no difficulty whatsoever.

Clause 3 deals with the audited accounts. I think that this is also clearly an improvement as it is most desirable that an Electricity Supply Commission such as Escom should, in fact, be obliged to supply accounts in the fullest and most precise manner possible, duly audited so that the financial implications of what Escom is called upon to do in the field of electricity supply, not only in this country, but also in relation to neighbouring countries, should in fact be more precisely known and published.

The last clause deals with the composition of the Electricity Control Board. It seems a rather curious structural feature of Escom that it is governed on the one hand by a Supply Commission, a commission of certain persons appointed to carry out functions concerned very largely with the actual generation of electricity, the management of the affairs of electricity generation in South Africa, and also with powers to supply electricity to the State, to departments, to certain corporations and to neighbouring territories, to other corporations, etc. All the above matters fall under the commission. Then side by side with this there is an Electricity Control Board, also consisting, in terms of the old legislation, of three to five persons selected for certain qualities. These persons are concerned more with the supply of electricity to other organizations, broadly speaking to the private sector. The powers and functions of these members of the Electricity Supply Board are also detailed in the principal Act. There is nothing to which we can take serious exception in the new proposals made by the hon. the Minister. He wants to extend the number of members and wants to add one new qualification for their appointment. I should like to ask him about this qualification, not because we see it as a cause for objection, but perhaps because it is rather curious. The point is that the gentlemen who are appointed to control the affairs of Escom, i.e. the people who are members of the commission, are appointed because they have certain qualities and these qualities are, and I quote from section 2(2) of the principal Act—

These are the people who actually generate the major supply of electricity in South Africa and who are in charge of the control of this great big electricity generating commission. They are to have experience in business and administration, and in so far as it may be relevant or expedient, electricity supply! The people who deal with supply of electricity to other corporations, to people outside the State machinery, that is to say the Electricity Supply Board, are however required, in terms of the proposed legislation, to have slightly different qualities, other qualities than a mere knowledge of business administration and, incidentally, some idea of electricity supply. These gentlemen on the board shall as far as practicable be appointed from persons having sufficient knowledge of electricity tariff matters, financial and cost accounting or economics. This is a slightly different category of qualifications. On the one hand the members of the commission are required to be businessmen with some knowledge, where expedient, of electricity generation, whilst on the other hand members of the board must have sufficient knowledge of electricity tariff matters, financial and cost accounting or economics.

These qualifications or qualities do not exactly correspond to those of the members of the commission. Neither do they correspond entirely to our understanding of the relative functions of the commission on the one hand and the board on the other. One wonders what kind of logic leads to the definition of “qualifications” of the commission on the one hand and the board on the other. I would have said that if one were to lay down qualifications for the board as compared with the commission, one would put a high premium on a knowledge of the technology of electricity in the case of the commission and a high premium on a knowledge of the business of electricity generation and the interests of the private sector in the case of the board, because it is the board which actually regulates the relations between Escom and the private sector.

As the hon. the Minister has said, this is a temporary or provisional measure, and although one might raise no objections to the form of words employed in this amendment Bill, it might be well to give a little more attention to the qualifications of the people who are appointed to the commission and the board and the desirability of introducing the skills, experience and interests of the private sector, more particularly into the sphere controlled by the board, with a view to making a good job of this reorganization of Escom. I believe that while the hon. the Minister is moving in the right direction, the whole reorganization requires a little bit more thought in the light of the growing role which Escom plays in an energy-hungry South Africa, of the growing interest other sectors of the economy have in Escom, and in view of the fact that South Africa will, perhaps more than any other country in the world, become highly dependent on electricity for the provision of its power supplies in a world which is increasingly being deprived of oil and fossil fuels.

Mr. Speaker, it is just a matter of weeks really since we received the Board of Trade’s report on Escom matters. I am rather pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has introduced this amending Bill as quickly as he has done. I sincerely hope that in time further alterations and amendments will be made in the light of the recommendations contained in that report.

We have no objection to the four clauses in this Bill, but I should like to comment on three of them. I am pleased to see that slightly tighter control will be exercised by the hon. the Minister because clause 2 requires the prior approval of the Minister before certain undertakings can be carried out. Clause 3 is also an improvement in that the commission will have to submit an improved financial statement similar to those produced by companies, about its operations and so on at the end of each year.

I should like to deal briefly with the proposed clause 4(1)(b). In recent times there has been a great deal of criticism about electricity supply tariffs and about the Board of Trade’s report on the running of Escom and its efficiency, etc. I think the fact that this subsection now states that the members of the Electricity Control Board will have certain qualities or qualifications is an improvement.

With these few words, I should just like to say that the NRP will support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of hon. members’ concurrence with and approval of the legislation, I do not intend keeping the House very long with my reply, except to thank hon. members for their co-operation in this particular regard. I also wish to point out that I expect that after the report of the Board of Trade and Industries has been studied, after comments have been received by interested parties, and after the Government has taken decisions, we shall probably come to the House next year with totally new legislation. I think this will be the ideal situation. We should then be able to conduct a very fruitful discussion on the overall structure of Escom, its functions and management. It can then be done properly.

At this stage I just want to confirm that the Government has already decided to appoint Mr. Smith, who is at present the general manager of Escom, as chairman of the commission itself, when Dr. Straszacker retires next year. As I will not have another opportunity to do so, I should like to express my great appreciation for the services which Dr. Straszacker has rendered the country and the commission.

A second remark which I want to make in this regard, is that although criticism has been expressed from time to time in respect of Escom’s advance estimate of its load and the so-called reserve generating capacity, it has nevertheless been proved that in the present circumstances of a total energy crisis in the world, we are in a fortunate position, due to Escom’s advance planning. It helps us to deal with this crisis with far greater ease and to absorb it with far less difficulty than many other countries in the world. With those words I wish to thank hon. members for their co-operation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, I only want to take up one or two minutes. This is a suitable opportunity, which the hon. the Minister has already taken, to pay tribute to the work done by Dr. Straszacker over many years as a very distinguished chairman of Escom, and as a pioneer, leader and developer in the field of electricity in South Africa. It is not commonly known that South Africa is one of the most highly electrified countries in the world. In facing a grave energy crisis, one of our major resources will be the high state of development of our electricity supply situation in South Africa, for which I think we owe a great deal to Dr. Straszacker. He is a man who perhaps by inclination would far sooner be a chess-master than a chairman of Escom. He had to make a hard choice and has become a great chairman of Escom and a chess-master to a lesser degree than might have been. He will be succeeded by Mr. Jan Smith, in whom we also have very great confidence. He has already shown evidence, if anyone should require it, of his ability in an enterprise of this important nature. I believe that we in South Africa are lucky to have men of this calibre. As Dr. Straszacker will probably have retired by the time the House has another opportunity of discussing Escom, this is a suitable opportunity to pay tribute to his services to South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to let this opportunity pass without echoing the sentiments that have just been expressed by the hon. member for Constantia. Direct contact with both these gentlemen moves me to associate myself very closely with what the hon. member has said. Dr. Straszacker is a true aristocrat among men, wherever they may be found. He has done great work for South Africa and for Southern Africa. Some of this work he did under very difficult personal circumstances, and he deserves the highest tribute South Africa can pay. I also fully share the confidence that the hon. member for Constantia expressed in his successor, Mr. Jan Smith.

Mr. Speaker, seeing that compliments are now the order of the day, you will probably allow me, as this is the last piece of legislation which I shall introduce with regard to the Department of Industries, to convey my gratitude and appreciation to the officials of the department for their cooperation over many years. I have great appreciation for it, and will be glad if those of them who are present here tonight, would convey this to their colleagues. I also want to take the opportunity to welcome my successor who will be responsible for the department in future and to wish him well. I also express my gratitude to hon. members for their co-operation.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

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

1. (1) On page 2, in lines 7 to 9, to omit the definition of “broadcasting service”;
2. (2) on page 2, in lines 12 to 15, to omit the definition of “newspaper”;
3. (3) on page 2, in lines 19 to 21, to omit the definition of “report”.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to make a few general remarks in regard to the passage of this Bill to date and the tremendous controversy that has surrounded it. I would also like to put briefly to the House the attitude that we intend adopting throughout the remainder of the discussions.

The first point I would like to make is that the placing of this Bill on the Order Paper in the form in which it originally appeared was a very great tragedy for South Africa. I believe that the fact that it did appear on the Order Paper in that form has done South Africa tremendous harm, amongst its own people as well as in the outside world. When words of patriotism are lightly bandied about in this House, one must realize—and I hope hon. members on that side of the House will realize it—what sort of damage they can do to our country by actions of this nature, actions which one can only call ill-considered. The fact is that the action in putting this Bill on the Order Paper in its original form was ill-considered. I believe that the fact that the hon. the Prime Minister has withdrawn the clause which was particularly offensive to the people of South Africa, is indicative of the fact that it was ill-considered, so much so that he has had to change his mind. I believe that this is the first real defeat the hon. the Prime Minister has suffered in the short space of time that he has been Prime Minister. I do not think, however, that it will be his last defeat.

Having said this, it remains for me to tell this House what the NRP’s attitude is towards this Bill in its amended form. When I say “in its amended form”, I mean including the amendments which the hon. the Minister is going to propose in the Committee Stage. Obviously the amendments which appear in his name on the Order Paper do a tremendous lot to make the Bill a lot more acceptable and to make it a Bill which certainly would not need the same measure of opprobrium as the Bill in its original form needed.

Our view is that there should be an office of Advocate-General. I think this is where we differ from the official Opposition.

You are telling me!

We do believe that there should be an Advocate General, and we believe that he will have a very real job to do. We in these benches would query whether that should be a full-time job, but we imagine that hon. members on that side of the House are in a better position to know how much of a full-time job this will actually be. We are in agreement with the principle, however, of an Advocate-General, because we, obviously, believe in clean government. We believe that the creation of this office will perhaps encourage people to bring matters before the Advocate-General which otherwise they might not have done. After all, the office of Auditor-General exists and the Auditor-General has very much the same sort of powers the Advocate-General will have. The office of Auditor-General has existed for many years, but he has never been publicized as a person to whom the public can go with their complaints of dishonest administration. Now we are getting a specific office created and, obviously, through the publicity this Bill has had, the public must certainly know that, if they have complaints of dishonest governmental actions, the right action for them to take is to take the matter to the Advocate-General. Therefore, when it comes to the clauses in the Bill that create the post of Advocate-General, we will support them.

There are clauses in the present Bill with which we are not in agreement and which we will debate later. If those clauses are altered, then perhaps we could give the overall measure a fuller degree of support. I simply want to indicate at this stage that in general the creation of the post of Advocate-General is something we do agree with and that we will support the relevant clauses. As I have also indicated, there are certainly clauses we will oppose, particularly those clauses in terms of which we believe he is given too many powers or too much protection.

Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the custom of permitting a wider discussion when dealing with the first clause of legislation of this nature, on the basis of the contribution made by the hon. member for East London North I, too, wish to cover a somewhat broader field at this stage instead of doing so later, as was my intention. I do not agree with the hon. member that the introduction of the legislation in its original form or its amended form was a tragedy. What was indeed a tragedy was the way in which certain members of this House and certain other people interpreted the aims we wish to achieve by way of this legislation.

What about your own Press?

Allow me to speak now, please. I gave the hon. member for East London North a chance. I do not believe that we should discuss this matter in the same emotional and even hysterical atmosphere that we have had here before. I think we should do so calmly. I should like to approach the matter in this way together with the hon. members opposite. Therefore, what is a pity is that this legislation, which ought to be widely welcomed legislation as regards its aims and objects, elicited such hysterical debating that eventually we allowed aim and method to differ from each other. Permit me, therefore, Sir, to formulate clearly the standpoint of the Government in regard to this legislation. While doing so I shall reply to the remarks of the hon. member for East London North and perhaps, too, the arguments which other hon. members are still going to advance.

I think we should begin at the beginning. When the hon. the Prime Minister was appointed Prime Minister of the country, he set himself certain targets with regard to the country’s administration and management. Let us admit that that was at a stage when the full extent and implications of what later became known as the Information debacle were not yet known as they are now. It is therefore of historical importance to note that the hon. the Prime Minister committed himself to clean administration and that he had already done so at that stage. The second statement I want to make is that the hon. the Prime Minister did not commit himself to clean administration only, but also to orderly government. Indeed, there is an important connection between orderly government and clean administration.

What does orderly government mean?

Orderly government implies that a country is governed in such a way that even the hon. member for Groote Schuur can find a place there and can enjoy privileges. [Interjections.]

What does it actually mean as a constitutional concept?

Order!

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member not allow me to continue? The hon. member can participate in the debate later. If he wants to put questions to me then I shall reply to him. I just want to point out that I, too, lived in the Groote Schuur constituency. Fortunately I am moving out. [Interjections.] It is very important that when we commit ourselves to clean and pure administration we should not merely commit ourselves to an avowal in that regard, but that we should also create the mechanism to ensure it. By introducing this Bill in its original form the only aim was, in the first place, to create an effective method or mechanism whereby people who were aware of, or had suspicions concerning possible criticism within the overall scope of the administration of the country had an institution they could resort to, one they could approach in their capacity as private citizens. Accordingly, I welcome the standpoint of the NRP in this regard, viz. that it accepts the method or mechanism created by this legislation to ensure that we can achieve and maintain a clean administration of the country.

I believe that after the hon. the Prime Minister committed himself to clean administration, a need arose from this, a need to furnish a visible guarantee to the general public that the promise of clean administration would be kept, particularly in the light of circumstances the extent of which only became known after that date. That institution, which has to constitute the visible assurance that the promise and the committal to clean administration will be honoured, had to comply with certain requirements.

In the nature of things the administration of the country is so vast and of so wide a scope that opportunities do exist for malpractices or abuses to occur. Anyone who does not foresee this is not a realist. When I say this I am not, of course, casting a reflection on the thousands of officials that have served this country faithfully and with realism; on the contrary, I am only stressing a well-known fact, namely that a person is not judged according to the criterion of his successes but is condemned by his 10% of failures. If we do not understand this either, then we do not understand the reality of life itself.

Do you agree with him, Helgard?

Oh, really, will the hon. member for Durban Central not listen to me first? He can find out later whether the hon. member for Mossel Bay agrees with me.

Due to the Information debacle and the circumstances surrounding it, we have been through a period which in my opinion was really tragic, because we have had innuendos, hints, gibes and gossip campaigns in which no one has been spared. Perhaps, in the arguments we have advanced abroad and perhaps even at home, we have been guilty of an error of reasoning, viz. that we have condemned the information media of the country by definition, whereas there are responsible media, too, in this country. I want to pay tribute this evening to the responsible media in South Africa, people who are critical even of the Government, but whose aim is solely to help to uphold democracy and its institutions. But having said that, I should be neglecting my duty if I were not to refer, too, to an irresponsible section of the media, that section whose aim is not to inform or educate, but to break down, whose aims, as manifested by their actions and conduct, represent nothing but the destruction of the system which makes their existence possible.

Thirdly, I want to point out that there is urgent work in South Africa that must be disposed of by the Government. I do not want to do much more than merely stress once again that South Africa is faced with forces that seek to bring about disorder and chaos and reveal themselves in every sphere of the life of our nation. I think hon. members will agree with me that the Government and Parliament have urgent work to do and need not, therefore, spend their time on matters which do not concern the actual continued existence and survival of our people.

The only possibility of achieving what I am putting forward this evening, in regard to which no one in this House will disagree with me, is that an institution be established whose honesty, integrity and independence in regard to opinion, standpoint and findings cannot be questioned, and through which effective action can be taken if malpractices are identified. It must be an institution that will be accessible to the ordinary man in the street. As I see it, such an institution must, in the first instance, be constitutionally independent, and must be independent not only in theory but also in practice. This means that in the first instance it must not be subject to the political authority. Secondly, it means that he must not be responsible to the authority of the Public Service, which will be his boss if he is an official.

The deficiency that has existed up to now is just that there has not been such an institution in our set-up.

However, let us take a look at the institutions that are concerned with the handling of maladministration, dishonesty or crime. In the first place there is the Attorney-General, and we have had debates in this House in which the independence of the Attorney-General has been questioned. That, therefore, was not sufficient. In the nature of the matter it could not be the Public Service itself, because they are subject to the executive. One could go through each of them in this way. Therefore we had to get something else, and that was the choice we made in this specific regard. It could not be the Auditor-General either, but for a different reason. His function is an audit function and he does not have the power of a jurist with regard to analytical investigation and weighing of evidence. We therefore had to have a juridical counterpart to the post of the Auditor-General. There is only one method of doing so, namely to have an institution which takes its authority from this Parliament and which will be accountable to Parliament itself. If we are in agreement about these specific matters then I should like to deal with the legislation as it has been conceived in principle.

You are making a Second Reading speech.

I am entitled to do so now because I am replying to the hon. member over there. It would pay the hon. member to listen to me.

You are making a Second Reading speech.

Order!

Do not squeal. There is a lot more coming your way.

The fundamental and principal aim of the legislation—and I am now summing it up—is to establish an accessible forum for anyone to which not only facts, but even suspicions relating to alleged irregularities of the nature defined in the Bill, may be submitted, and where an effective investigation of and report on such alleged irregularities may be assured. I therefore want to repeat for the purposes of my argument that any inference that the principal aim of the legislation is a restriction on the freedom of the media, is a false inference.

Were all the newspapers wrong?

No, all the newspapers were not wrong. The fact is that we must consider what the hon. members were told by certain media to come and say here about what they thought the legislation sought to achieve. This is the important point.

When we discuss it later, I shall deal in full with the amendments I myself have submitted or will submit. In the meantime I welcome the hon. member’s standpoint that they support the Bill in principle.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs introducing his first Bill, and I want to wish him well in his new post. It is a pity that he is introducing a Bill which will not enjoy the support of the official Opposition, for reasons which I shall give. First of all, we have listened to the hon. the Minister linking this with the traumatic experiences of the scandal in connection with the Information debacle, but the hon. the Minister has not explained why additional machinery is needed in order to establish where the fault lay. Indeed, had there been provision for the proper auditing of accounts all the way through, that scandal would not have happened. It happened because under certain Acts there was not the requirement that the Auditor-General should audit those accounts. That is the reason why we reached this tragic state of affairs. I want the hon. the Minister to explain what corruption there could have been if the accounts had been properly audited. If provision had existed for the auditing of all these accounts, the sorry chapter in South Africa’s history and the string of people who have lost their offices, would not have taken place.

He has not explained to us why there is a need for special new machinery in addition to the Auditor-General whose functions, we agree, may be enlarged, if need be, in addition to those of the Attorneys-General in investigating specific allegations of crime and corruption. We are not persuaded that additional machinery is necessary. We believe that the solution lies basically with changing the system of audit, because it was in this area where abusing took place which, in the end, created the Information scandal. One cannot divorce this measure before us, as it has come back from the Select Committee, from all that has gone before. The Government does have a commitment to clean Government, but we are not persuaded that this is the machinery that is necessary. Right from the word go, in the short session we had on 7 and 8 December last year, the hon. the Prime Minister said to the hon. member for Musgrave—

So one cannot say that it was never the intention to deal with what the Prime Minister called “gossip” or “rumour-mongering”. An essential part of this is to prevent what the Prime Minister then called “rumour mongering”. The debate during the Second Reading confirmed this. The trend of the debate was basically directed at what was called “rumour-mongering”, the Press or irresponsible individuals, as defined by the Government itself. This was the trend of the discussion on the Select Committee of which I was a member. It is not just a matter of dealing with the Press, but also with individuals, members of Parliament, candidates, should they suggest that there are things being done which are not proper. So the hon. the Prime Minister persisted, until pressures built up inside and outside his party, until he was alienated even from his own Press in this matter, and then came forth with a statement on the 14 June in this House, a remarkable statement because he said (col. 8629)—

[Interjections.]

*The important point which the Prime Minister made was that he was going to relinquish certain clauses for the time being. That does not mean that he is going to relinquish the clauses altogether, but only for the time being. We are now being requested to create machinery so that the Prime Minister, at a later stage, could use that machinery to gag the Press. We are not prepared to create machinery which for the present only, will be divorced from those particular gagging clauses, clauses which could be added again at a later stage. [Interjections.] The Prime Minister said it was only for the present.

†We are not prepared to support legislation which is actually a sword of Damocles hanging over the Press of South Africa. It is not because we presume that this is so. It is because the Prime Minister has said it in so many words. He also said—

In other words, he has committed this Government to some form of prepublication censorship. We believe that this still is an important feature of this Bill. It is a feature of this Bill and it is quite clearly an intention of the hon. the Prime Minister. Having agreed to remove certain clauses, as they will be removed, certain important gagging features relating to the Press and to individuals still apply. In fact clause 8, as it stands, provides for not anticipating the proceedings, the findings, of the Advocated General. This will have the practical effect of silencing the Press or individuals in respect of any matter which is under inquiry at that time. [Interjections.] This is the gravamen of the case that was brought against Sparks and Fraser in December of last year.

It was because, by reporting the evidence of the Mostert Commission on the same subject they anticipated the matter being investigated by the Erasmus Commission. By reporting on that they found themselves in court and were found guilty of contempt of the commission. This clause is just as severe. In fact, in a sense it is even more severe.

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

The hon. the Minister will have his opportunity to speak in a moment. It will have this practical effect. What is more, it is almost an on-going situation. It is not a special commission. There is a mechanism for starting the inquiry. This does not rest with somebody laying a criminal charge, with the hon. the Prime Minister or the State President appointing a commission or even with an individual who wants his own suspicion about corruption investigated. Any individual, having read a report that someone has a suspicion, can trigger off that inquiry.

Is it wrong?

Of course it is wrong. They may not wish to lay charges. However, this is directly related to trying to prevent people from expressing themselves on allegations or suspicions of corruption. This is the anti-rumour-mongering part of this legislation. It is, to a very significant extent, a duplication of the functions of the Auditor-General, especially in view of the new definition of State moneys which is, in fact, taken from the Exchequer and Audit Act and relates directly to the work of the Auditor-General. We believe that the practical effect of the application of the proposed legislation, the setting up of this office, together with the powers, functions and the procedures which will be adopted, will have the effect, in practice, of muzzling the Press, increasing the area of rumour and duplicating the work of the Auditor-General, a man who has, over many years, developed a special relationship between his department and its work and Parliament. We see no reason why we should create this additional post, and at the same time bring into being machinery which, even as the Bill stands at the moment, will have the effect of muzzling the Press …

All the old clichés.

But it is the truth. The hon. the Minister must wait until we deal with clause 7 and then explain it. It is exactly the same as the Commissions Act, except that it also elevates this commissioner to the level of a court, so the question of contempt of court would also apply. When we read clause 2, which sets up the Advocate-General, together with other clauses which give effect to his functions, we find ourselves unable to support the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. I want to level an accusation at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. When he advances an argument in this House, the normal rules require that he should quote people in full. I now accuse him of not having intended to quote the hon. the Prime Minister’s secretary in full. [Interjections.]

That is why you are introducing this Bill. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is really strange that the hon. members on that side of the House kick up a row to serve as a lightning conductor for the arguments of their leader. [Interjections.] When the hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke, we remained silent. [Interjections.] However, they do not have the necessary courtesy to do the same. They are the pious people who want to prescribe norms to other people.

I maintain that before I pointed out to him that he had left out an important part of the first paragraph, he had not intended to quote the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister in full.

Of course I was.

Let us get down to the rest of the clause.

Oh really, man, be quiet.

†You are the pig that got up and walked away.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon. the Minister allowed to say that?

Yes, of course.

Are you insinuating that the hon. member …

No. I am not insinuating anything.

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is now arguing that if the accounts of the former Department of Information had been properly audited, the need for this legislation would not have arisen. The hon. member has clearly not listened to what I said. I have told hon. members before that what we needed to maintain clean administration was the juristic counterpart of the Auditor-General, an institution that will be independent of the executive and which will derive its authority from Parliament. In addition, this body would be accountable for its reports, not to the executive, but once again to Parliament itself. In the second place, such an institution could have a preventive effect while the Auditor-General carried out a post facto audit. I do not seem to be able to get this into the hon. member’s head. The hon. member went on to argue about the implications of clauses 7 and 8. Protection is quite rightly afforded in the Commissions Act regarding the activities of commissions. Is the hon. member not satisfied with the provisions in the Commissions Act that are identical to clause 7?

He himself serves on a commission.

Yes. He serves on a commission. Hon. members therefore want to argue the matter both ways.

I want to stress the fact that it was deemed necessary to include a restriction relating to publication in the Bill as originally introduced. The principal aim of the legislation was, however, not to prohibit or limit publication. This was done in order to ensure another principal aim. What was that principal aim? The hon. Leader of the Opposition will probably grasp this. It was done, in the first place, to ensure that what was published, would not harm the interests of the country. There is no one in this House—if there is such a person, then I had better hear from him—who argues that things that could harm the interests of the country ought to be published. We can argue among ourselves as to what is and what is not in the interests of the country, but we certainly cannot argue that something should be published which could endanger the interests of the country. In the second place, the aim was to ensure that the truth was published, in order to carry out and execute the principal objective.

The hon. member for East London North maintained, inter alia, that the hon. the Prime Minister’s announcement that he was going to delete certain provisions with regard to the publication of information, represented his first defeat. That is the first time I have heard that reasonableness is a defeat. It is the first time I have heard that a reasonable change in standpoint, after consultation, is regarded as weakness. That, then, is that hon. member’s attitude, instead of praising the hon. the Prime Minister for the fact that after …

[Inaudible.]

Hon. members must please give me a chance to explain.

Let us be honest, now; he was forced to do it. [Interjections.]

Oh, heavens! Those cinderellas cannot force anyone to do anything. The hon. member for East London North, instead of having the generosity to praise the hon. the Prime Minister in this regard, makes the hon. the Prime Minister’s reasonableness and generosity synonymous with a defeat or weakness.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.