Mr. Chairman, we stated our view on the principle of this Bill during the Second Reading. This is a one-clause Bill and therefore not a Committee Stage Bill at all.

We will be stating our view of this Bill again during the Third Reading and will then comment quite forcibly on the principle contained therein. In the circumstances I do not wish to address the House at this stage. I merely want to give notice that we intend opposing this clause by voting against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, when this Bill was introduced on Monday I remarked that it was introduced by a most remarkable and smiling hon. Deputy Minister.

Still smiling.

Throughout the proceedings relating to this Bill, the hon. the Deputy Minister’s countenance has not changed at all. I was however, I must admit, in error, because I thought that the reason why the hon. the Deputy Minister was smiling was that he had pulled a fast one on his Transvaal colleagues. He has been at pains to explain to us, however, that this Bill is no way discriminates against the Transvaal.

No, never!

I therefore come to the conclusion that that was perhaps not the reason why he was smiling. I think the real reason why he was smiling was because he had had a preview of the budget and of that 35% hike that hon. Deputy Ministers are to enjoy in terms of the budget. What I want to say in regard to that hike is that we expect greater productivity from that hon. Deputy Minister now that the budget has been announced. In regard to this Bill we expect far more intelligent answers than we had earlier this week.

What are you going to do about your hike?

What is it? Will somebody tell us?

We expect far more erudite arguments than we have had to endure up to now.

It is quite clear, and the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned this in his argument, that a delimitation could not take place in terms of the existing law, and there is a reason for that. The reason is that the number of seats per province, in terms of the decisions of the 1973 Select Committee, as enshrined in the law at that time, had been pegged at 55 for the Cape, 76 for the Transvaal, 20 to Natal and 14 to the OFS. Whilst those seats had been pegged, however, there remained a situation in terms of Statute, whereby a national quota, for all constituencies throughout the Republic, applied throughout the provinces. These two principles are mutually incompatible, particularly when one takes into account the disproportionate growth that has occurred in the various provinces, and especially in the Transvaal, and the disproportionate growth which has occurred in some centres in the provinces and which has not occurred in others. Because of this disproportionate growth it has become painfully obvious to all members of the House that in terms of the existing law it would be impossible, or nearly so, to delimit the Transvaal in particular on the basis as presently set out in the law. It is therefore quite clear that something has to be done about the matter. The hon. the Deputy Minister, who is no doubt advised by his officials who have the figures at their fingertips, is of the view, as we are, that something has to be done to create a situation where a delimination may take place properly. The question that has to be asked, however, is why the law is being amended in the form in which it is being amended. Why is a provincial quota being introduced which does not solve the mischief which has been caused over the years of development in South Africa, but in fact exaggerates and aggravates the disproportion between the provinces and in the representation of the provinces? In particular, the law is being changed in such a way—and I honestly do not believe that there is a single Transvaal member in the House who can argue the contrary—that the Transvaal province is going to be disadvantaged for at least several years. Let us not put a particular time factor on it, but there is no doubt that the Transvaal is going to be disadvantaged for several years to come.

At this stage I want to ask the following question: Is there not a better way of solving the problem with which the hon. the Deputy Minister is confronted than by the present means? The principle of the pegging of the number of seats is, in terms of the history of South Africa, a new principle. The other principle, the question of the national quota, although it has not applied continuously throughout South Africa since Union—and we all understand that—has at least been on the Statute Book far longer than the question of the pegging. Would it not be correct…

Five years.

… to retain the national quota and to do away with the pegging of the number of seats for the provinces, which in fact has caused the very mischief we complain of? That is the first step which should be taken. Having done away with the pegging, the second thing that should be done is to retain the national quota with a reduced loading and deloading factor. Thirdly, to deal with the mischief, to deal with the difficulty and the trend which the hon. the Deputy Minister has discussed in the House, the trend of a disproportionate growth of one province over another, would it not be correct to sit around a table in a Select Committee and discuss with representatives of all the provinces a means of guaranteeing minimum representation for provinces which do not grow as fast as others? This is a principle the hon. the Deputy Minister espoused some years ago. It is a principle I am sure he still believes in and I think it is a principle which should have been utilized far sooner than the principle which is being introduced into the Act at the present time. It is far fairer to the Transvaal and it is far fairer to the basic concepts and precepts of democracy.

So, the way the law is being amended at the present moment insures a continued disproportionate representation for several years to come and at least until the next delimitation commission. The hon. member for Rissik seemed to think, although he did not state it emphatically, that this arrangement was but an interim arrangement. He knows that the actual position relating to seats cannot be changed until the next delimitation commission and he knows that the appointment of the next delimitation commission is at the discretion of the hon. the Prime Minister.

Such a commission may not necessarily be called into life until 1990, and if that is the case, whether the matter is reviewed in 1983, after a period of 10 years, or not, the position is that until we have another Delimitation Commission, reform within the ambits of the constituencies of South Africa cannot be brought about.

[Inaudible.]

Let me ask the hon. member for Stilfontein to get up and ask his question politely, instead of sitting with his boots on the desk and shouting from his dim corner. The hon. the Deputy Minister argued in his reply that the Transvaal in truth had not lost one single seat as a result of the legislation which is before us and that no seats had been taken away from any province. However, the problem is that that is not the argument that is being offered. He is in fact talking right past the argument that is being offered. The argument is not that the Transvaal is losing seats, but that the Transvaal is not being given the seats to which it is entitled by virtue of its electoral numbers.

It is not affected by this Bill.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the Transvaal’s position is not being affected by this Bill. That is not correct at all, because this Bill is bringing into life a means of delimiting the country’s constituencies which will endure for several years. If an opportunity is not taken at this moment to rectify the imbalance, that imbalance, to the delight of the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, will be perpetuated for a further 10 years. He nods his head. I know that he is in agreement with me.

I am in agreement with the Bill. [Interjections.]

We should know, while we are laughing about it and while the hon. the Prime Minister is happy about the result of his little plan, that the Transvaal, by acceding to this Bill is in fact giving up eight seats in Parliament and over the next seven or eight years …

Boraine does not agree with you.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark says that the hon. member for Pinelands does not agree. One of the many differences between the hon. member for Pinelands here and that hon. member is that the hon. member for Pinelands actually stands by his principles in relation to the South African electoral set-up. So we are going to have a situation, by passing this Bill, in terms of which the Transvaal is going to be disadvantaged to the extent of some 17 seats. If one takes into account the situation that this disproportion was first commenced in 1973, through the blunders of a committee which sat at that time, one realizes that for almost half a generation the Transvaal is going to be disadvantaged, and that is a long time in the lifetime of anybody, especially in the lifetime of hon. members in politics, if one takes into account the fact that the political life of an hon. member is, on average, seven to eight years. It is for double that period of time that the Transvaal is going to be discriminated against. What the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs is so happy about, is the fact that the Transvaal vote will be worth one-third to one-half less than the value of a Cape vote. [Interjections.] There is laughter over there because there is obvious friction between the Transvaal and the Cape, but whatever we may say about it, the fact is that this principle in fact makes a mockery of a belief that a vote, wherever it should be expressed in South Africa, should have roughly the same value.

I am very surprised at the attitude of the Transvalers. I am surprised that the hon. member for Ermelo, who is sitting benignly on the other side of the House, happily looking down at his boots, is not prepared to enter into the debate on behalf of his people. I am particularly surprised the hon. member for Kempton Park is sitting there looking absolutely happy. He knows that both his seat and his constituency are overloaded if I may coin …

It is nice to be a Nationalist!

Let us look at the hon. member for Witwatersberg. He is allowing the Transvaal, in terms of this Bill, to be sold down the river. Hon. members have not had the courage to stand up in the House and to speak their minds.

Order! The hon. member must not repeat himself.

Mr. Speaker, I am, however, not surprised at the attitude of the hon. member for Rissik. I understand his difficulty. He was in a cleft stick in this debate. He sat on the committee where the mistakes were first made, he is chairman of his party’s group and, quite frankly, he was going to be in trouble no matter what happened in terms of this Bill. He had to speak and he had to walk that fence in the way that he did. He spoke of a possible change in the period of time that lies ahead. I have mentioned to him that there is no duty upon the Government to appoint a Delimitation Commission for at least ten years.

So, to sum up, we have the situation of an under-representation which, quite apart from the war in the NP which has gone underground for the moment, does not coincide with our view of democracy. I believe that this Bill is evidence of political expediency far and above the normal call of duty to the NP. We in this party will at least say in public what others have said to us in private, i.e. that we will vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the hon. member for Sandton attacked me during an earlier stage of this debate. I am not surprised that he did not speak on the Bill during the Committee Stage, because, with respect, nothing that he has said during the Third Reading would have been permitted at the Committee Stage where he would have had to deal with the detail of the Bill. The one clause of this Bill provides for the quota for delimitation. His first argument is not on whether there should be a provincial or a national quota, but on how many seats there should be in the different provinces, and that is not part of this Bill. The second point is that the hon. member represents a party which believes in constitutional safeguards. His party believes that minorities must be protected by the Constitution. They believe that the Constitution is the one and only safeguard for the rights of minorities. This Parliament entered into a solemn agreement that for 10 years the seats in Parliament would be allocated according to a formula. The PFP, who say they believe in constitutional safeguards, now come here and want to break that agreement. They want to take away its protection for minorities. They want to take away from the smaller provinces and give to the bigger provinces. This is the logic of his whole argument. I cannot understand this unholy alliance between the hon. the Minister of Public Works and of Tourism and the official Opposition. [Interjections.] The official Opposition want to give the leader of the Transvaal more seats. They want to strengthen the grip, the stranglehold, of the Transvaal on politics. The PFP say that on principle they will support the Transvaal stranglehold. The hon. member for Sandton asked for a Select Committee to be appointed now, at the very time the hon. member is himself sitting on a constitutional commission which has heard evidence on this issue and which will have to deliberate and come to a decision. The hon. member wants Parliament to forestall a State President’s commission on which the hon. member sits. The hon. member wants us to pre-empt the right of that commission to decide on the issue before the House. We in this party are not prepared to break an agreement which was made.

Let me just correct one other point. The proposed delimitation will not be entrenched for 10 years. The delimitation will be extended for five years, because in terms of the Constitution there can be another delimitation in five years. Therefore the Opposition’s argument is not only not based on facts, but is also based on an attempt to break an agreement incorporated in the Constitution of South Africa. That party now wants to undermine it by taking away a benefit from the minority provinces to strengthen the Transvaal. We shall continue to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, that was a most remarkable outburst from the hon. member for Durban Point. Unfortunately he was not here during the Second Reading or the Committee Stage. [Interjections.]

I know all about it.

The hon. member for Durban Point suggests that we, by saying that the matter should be referred to a Select Committee, are pre-empting the findings of the Schlebusch Commission. But in fact Parliament is pre-empting the findings of the Schlebusch Commission, because it is here proceeding to change the very Act which has been referred to the Schlebusch Commission. The hon. member said there was evidence before the commission and they were considering this matter. If the hon. member is correct, and let us assume he is correct, surely the House should not pass a measure of this kind thereby giving the Schlebusch Commission a slap in the face.

This is a matter of detail.

The hon. member says it is a matter of detail. The hon. member keeps on speaking about special protection for the minority provinces.

Three provinces versus the Transvaal.

It was never the intention, even in the agreement of 1973, that there should be special protection for the minority provinces.

What was it then?

If the hon. member will read the Bill, he will see that it is very clear in allocating certain numbers to provinces. But it further states that each seat should be as near as possible to the national quota. That is a principle underlining the Bill. Now the hon. member says that the agreement was that the minority provinces should be favoured. It was never that. At that particular time that seemed to be a reasonable allocation of seats. It did load slightly against the Transvaal and unload in favour of the other provinces, but that was necessary to give effect to the loading and unloading provisions of the Act.

If the hon. member for Durban Point had realized in 1973 that within seven years a situation would arise where an unloaded Cape seat would have only 8 500 votes and a loaded Transvaal seat, 17 400, would he have thought that was a reasonable allocation?

That cannot happen in practice.

It can happen in practice.

That is theory. The Act states 15% up and 15% down, and it works that way.

There are already seven Cape seats that are unloaded by more than 29%. One is unloaded by 29,9% and two by 29,7%.

The NP do not know the facts.

So it is possible to unload Cape seats to the extent of nearly 30%. [Interjections.] We are talking of excess-area seats. Likewise it is entirely possible to load Transvaal seats by up to 15%. There is no problem, especially as one is now going for provincial quotas. Now that one is going for provincial quotas, it becomes even more possible to increase the disparity between the urban and the rural voters.

So the hon. member and his colleagues at that time were guilty of what Schalk Pienaar called a “ligte mistykie”. They made a small mistake, the minor kind of error to which the hon. the Prime Minister referred the other day. They did not take into account the rapid and significant demographic changes that were taking place in South Africa. However reasonable the 1973 situation might have been, the reality is that in 1980 there is already a disparity of an excess of 10% in favour of the Cape and a disparity of over 10% to the disadvantage of the Transvaal, and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that this disparity is going to increase. It is going to increase over the next 10 years and before this matter is resolved. As it stands at the moment, the Act is quite clear. The fundamental principle of the parent Act is that each seat should be as near as possible to the national quota. Arising out of that the members of the Select Committee, in their frailty, decided upon a certain arbitrary allocation of seats. But they never undid this principle. The principle in the present Act is that each seat should be as near as possible to the national quota. We stand by that; we think it is correct and we think it is appropriate. Therefore, both out of respect for the Schlebusch Commission and out of a sense of common justice between the voters of South Africa, this Bill should in fact not have been brought before this House.

Mr. Speaker, again today the discussion by the official Opposition has merely showed us once again that South Africa is saddled with an official Opposition which is prepared, for political purposes, to cast aside the basic principles which every other party which has come into being in South Africa since Union, and every other official Opposition has always adhered to. This was one of the principles on the basis of which the Union of South Africa came into being, viz. that the distribution of the population in the country would be borne in mind and that in view of our geographic structure we should make provision for the sparsely populated areas of the country. Right at the outset it was recognized that votes in South Africa would not have an equal value and it was provided that there would be a deloading and a loading of constituencies. That is as old as the Union itself. The hon. member for Sandton is now branding the principles contained in the Constitution as “a mischief” because his party believes that each vote in South Africa as such can have the same value, whether it be in Soutpansberg or in Salt River. That has never been the idea. Without this principle of making a concession to those parts of South Africa where the constituencies have a large surface area, the Union of South Africa would not have come into being. It was necessary to lean over backwards to give effect to this principle. Let me quote to hon. members from the diary of F. S. Malan—this was at the convention held at the time, where this was already a matter which was debated. He states—

At the time there were smaller colonies than the Cape—

This was therefore a matter that was ironed out by the convention fathers. The official Opposition is therefore the first party that seeks to throw this principle overboard. Then they talk about the protection of the Constitution! They are not prepared to stand by anything that does not suit their political philosophy. It is therefore outrageous that the hon. member for Sandton should now talk about “a mischief” because there is a deloading in certain constituencies and because certain constituencies have more votes than others. He says that I have a problem, and asks why I do not try and iron out the problem in a different way. I do not have a problem. I do not wish to run away from the agreement which the hon. member for Durban Point has just mentioned. The hon. member wants this party, the Government, to throw overboard at this stage an agreement reached by the parties at that time by way of a Select Committee of this House, a solemn agreement concluded and laid down in legislation. For what purpose must I do this and appoint another Committee? I am dealing with an agreement which is embodied in the existing Act and which must stand for 10 years. What I must do is to forge the instruments to achieve that aim and to give effect to that agreement, in such a way that that aim can in fact be achieved. The best instrument is a provincial quota. The hon. member said that the Union quota was older than the agreement. The agreement was reached in 1973, and the national quota applied from 1965, eight years before that. In contrast, the principle of delimiting in terms of the provincial quota was operative for 55 years.

We reached an agreement extending over 10 years. The hon. member for Sandton pointed out the possibility that this agreement, concluded for 10 years, could now be extended. The hon. member for Durban Point said that it could be extended for another two to three years. To extend it by five years does not necessarily mean that the period will extend for 15 years; it could extend for only 12 to 13 years. After the expiry of the period of 10 years, the situation is in the hands of the Government and of Parliament. The position will not remain as it is at present. I can assure the hon. member that it will not remain like that. There are two solutions. The one is for us to revert to the status quo after the 10 years are over. In other words, we shall then lay down a national quota and determine the number of constituencies that every province will be entitled to, and then carry out the delimitation in accordance with the provincial quota, because even at the best of times, the national quota was no good during the five years of its existence.

Therefore, we can return to the status quo which prevailed before 1973, or we could leave it to the Government and to Parliament to appoint a Select Committee or a commission to take a fresh look at this situation. I am in favour of this being considered. I said yesterday—and I am still convinced of this— that we in South Africa cannot look on and permit the political power and representation in this Parliament of certain provinces to be constantly whittled away due to a situation over which they have no control, so that as a result an unbalanced situation develops in South Africa. The matter is therefore in the hands of Parliament and the Government, who must decide whether they want to refer the matter to any body which would then take a fresh look at the matter, taking into account the proposals made by the Government in 1973, and would come forward with proposals.

I think I have now replied to all the questions. I just want to thank the Opposition for having been prepared to discuss the Third Reading of this Bill as well today.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading I raised a query in regard to this particular clause, which extends the objects of the board so that the S.A. Defence Force Fund may make funds available to members or former members of the S.A. Defence Force. In terms of this amending clause provision is made for the inclusion of auxiliary services established and designated in terms of the Defence Act of 1957. This amending measure, we believe, would result in additional financial strain on the S.A. Defence Force Fund because one of the prime factors included here is the availability of funds with due regard to the financial position of the S.A. Defence Force Fund.

The amending clause we are dealing with now could result in additional financial aid being granted to auxiliary services, including the Cape Corps and the nursing services, as well as those auxiliary services existing in terms of the Defence Act. Therefore it is important that we ascertain whether the financial implications of this particular amending clause are being given serious consideration in order to ensure that sufficient moneys are being paid into the S.A. Defence Force Fund so that that Fund can meet the additional expenditure which it is likely to incur as a result of this measure.

Therefore I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us some indication of the financial implications of this amending measure.

Mr. Chairman, I said this last night but I shall just reiterate it: At this stage I have no information on the strength of this fund. I do not believe that it is really of any value as far as this legislation is concerned. This legislation merely seeks to include certain people who were previously not included in it. There is a properly controlled fund—a fund which is controlled by a board—and I am sure that the fund will certainly not continue blithely to make payments until it is bankrupt. However, I do not have the information the hon. member has asked for. If he wants it very badly, I want to point out to him that it is a question which should really be asked under the Defence Vote.

The hon. member can obtain all that information when the Defence Vote is being discussed. That fund falls under the Defence Force itself. The fund does not fall under me. I am merely in charge of the amendment of the legislation, an amendment which was made at the request of the Board of the S.A. Defence Force Fund. They requested the amendment because they would like to make payments to certain other people, and fortunately cannot do so in terms of the Act as it is worded at present. That is why the Act must be amended. Actually, the position of the fund has very little to do with me. The hon. member must raise the matter when the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Defence is being discussed.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated during the Second Reading this is the clause with which we have a difficulty. It relates to section 27 of the Act and contains stipulations in connection with certain contraventions which may take place in terms of the Act. We are objecting to the removing of the word “knowingly”, which the hon. the Minister seeks to ratify in this clause. I submit that by removing the word “knowingly” we are in fact making it easier for a prosecution to take place in terms of this measure. We are removing safeguards that exist in this particular clause. We do not feel that we can support legislation that makes it easier for a conviction in terms of a piece of legislation designed for welfare organizations whose members mostly volunteer and lend their aid to the activities of the organization. Let me put my argument very simply. Every welfare organization is a juristic person because it must be registered in terms of the National Welfare Act of 1978. Secondly, apart from that, in most cases, I would say in 99 cases out of 100, it is also a section 21 company registered in terms of the Companies Act as a non-profit company. This consequently makes it a juristic person. Let me quote from Diemont—

This means that the persons I have referred to would be charged separately or jointly, but here it is not only a question of a director or servant, because reference is made to—

This is not being amended in the Bill before us. So the provision goes beyond that involving only a director or servant. It involves anyone who participates, and this could be a fund-raiser, a servant of the company, a clerk or typist of the organization. Any such person could be deemed to be participating in the management or control of the organization because the provision covers such wide ground. When the prosecution actually takes place, it will be in terms of section 332(1) of the Criminal Code, as amended, and I quote subsection (1)—

1. (a) any act performed, with or without a particular intent, by or on instructions or with permission, express or implied, given by a director or servant of that corporate body.

So the concept with or without intent is a protection afforded by the criminal code, and any person charged in terms of this legislation would be protected by the word “knowingly.” We, however, are wanting to go further than the Criminal Code, which lays down “with or without intent”, because we are removing the word “knowingly” which is a form of protection afforded to a person participating in the activities of such an organization. This does not, of course, only involve an organization. It goes further, referring also to a “registered branch or an authorized or other organization which … contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of this Act…”. There is a fine of R1 500 in the case of certain offences. When we passed the original legislation in 1978 we had no quarrel with this provision when the word “knowingly” was included. There seems no reason why we should now make it more difficult for people to participate in the activities of such organizations. I can see no reason why we should make it easier for them to be prosecuted, thereby frightening people away from participation in the activities of such organizations. Therefore we are against the amendment of this clause. I should like the legislation to revert to the situation that pertained before the introduction of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I simply cannot agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow. It is difficult to discuss this clause in isolation. However, the fact remains we have this amending Bill before us today as a result of many complaints brought to the attention of the authorities over a long period of time, principally by welfare organizations, complaints about irregularities taking place in welfare organizations. This specific provision applies to any person involved in the control of a fund-raising organization. It expressly states that any person, including any outsider, who contravenes the provisions of this legislation shall be guilty of an offence. In that case the words “and … knowingly” are eliminated. In actual fact the only meaning that could be attached to it is that it is no longer necessary for the State to prove intent. If people who control a fundraising organization do not know what is right and wrong, how would the outsider know? The hon. member for Hillbrow mentioned an example here. Hypothetically he placed himself in the position of a chairman of a fund-raising organization. He said that in that case he could perhaps be an accomplice to crimes that had previously been committed. For many years we have known that this is not the case. On the contrary, in nine cases out of ten one would find that the chairman is the very person who discovered the irregularities.

I should like to give a practical example. Let us say that a certain Mr. X goes to the secretary of the Cripple Fund and receives a fund-raising list. He collects funds and subsequently tears up the list and reports that he has lost it. My contention is that, if the State has proved that he received the list, raised funds and subsequently reported that he had lost the list, this would be sufficient. It is not necessary to prove how the accused considered the matter. Consequently I cannot agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow.

I should like to support the amendment in its existing form. It is a pity if the impression is being created that this legislation has made matters more difficult for welfare and fundraising organizations, because this is most definitely not the case. In actual fact these people are being protected and singled out as honourable people who are prepared to collect money for welfare purposes.

Mr. Chairman, we on these benches also expressed our concern about this particular clause in the Second Reading debate. At this stage it is difficult to try to ascertain the reasons why the hon. the Minister wishes to delete the word “knowingly” in this provision. If one reads the long title, it merely states as far as this aspect is concerned: “To prescribe the penalty for a certain offence.” Evidently this was an omission. In a subsequent clause provision is made that “in the case of an offence referred to in section 27” a fine not exceeding R500 can be imposed. That is in accordance with the long title of the Bill. However, this one word in the clause, the word “knowingly”, is certainly one which does give cause for concern when one considers the background and the reasons for the introduction of the principal Act in 1978. We know there was certain evidence brought to light in the Van Rooyen report. That commission indicated that certain malpractices were taking place. People were raising funds allegedly on behalf of welfare organizations and then misappropriating those funds. Consequently it was necessary to have a greater degree of control over welfare organizations, which are now also registered as fund-raising organizations. That one acknowledges. The fact remains, however, that a large number of welfare organizations and people holding office as office bearers in those welfare organizations are concerned about the fact that they could be contravening some aspect of the legislation because this clause provides that if a person “fails to comply with any provision of this Act”, he shall be guilty of an offence.

If one reads the principal Act one can see that there are a large number of matters which have to be attended to and steps that have to be taken. If one further reads the offences and penalties contained in clause 7 of the Bill one can see the large number of offences which can be committed in terms of any of the provisions of the Act. The legislation is therefore very widely worded and the word “knowingly” in clause 5 is there so that the office-bearer who might unwittingly contravene some section of the Act would have a degree of defence by being able to say that he did not knowingly contravene that particular provision. I believe the hon. the Minister should give consideration to allowing this clause to be passed without the deletion of the word “knowingly” contained in this clause. So I do hope the hon. the Minister can give us either a very good reason why the word should remain, or otherwise he should, in deference to the large number of welfare organizations that are concerned about some of the provisions of this Act—I do not know whether many of them are aware of this amending provision which is before the House—give further consideration to not proceeding with the deletion of the word “knowingly”.

Mr. Chairman, it is gratifying to hear the hon. member for Umbilo sharing the concern which has been expressed on this clause. I thank the hon. member for Springs for his support and for the example he quoted of a chairman of an organization who discovers that there has been a defalcation inside his organization and is obliged to report it, which means that he lays himself open to criminal prosecution and therefore has to be prosecuted. Is that what the hon. member wants?

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to reply briefly to the few things hon. members said, and I want to begin with the hon. member for Umbilo. I read the speech he made in 1978, before the word “knowingly” was moved in the committee stage. At that stage the hon. member gave his support to the legislation and did not say a word about the then clause 27.

No, I did not. I accepted the principle during the Second Reading.

In fact, the hon. member accepted the old clause. He accepted the principle in his Second Reading speech. During the committee stage the word “knowingly” was inserted, and now the hon. member is objecting because the word “knowingly” is being deleted.

I want to know why this is being done.

I believe it is sometimes a good thing for one first to examine one’s old Hansard speeches before discussing a matter. I examined the hon. member’s Hansard of 1978 and found that he then accepted the principle of the legislation. Now the hon. member is complaining that I am deleting the word “knowingly”, but it was not contained in the legislation when he made his Second Reading speech in 1978.

The hon. member for Springs mentioned a few very interesting points. I think we have lost sight of what this legislation is really about. The legislation was introduced in order to eliminate certain malpractices.

†I think hon. members must concede that the reason for this particular legislation is to get rid of certain malpractices. I think hon. members will concede that the failure to obtain the prescribed authority to collect contributions is a reasonably serious matter. Secondly, to keep proper records of moneys received or expended is obviously also a very serious matter in any organization and, thirdly, to use moneys collected for other purposes than the purposes for which they were collected from the public is also a serious matter. Those are the three main reasons for prosecution. We are now dealing with the word “knowingly”, and many arguments have been raised as to whether the word should be retained in the Act or whether it should be deleted. This word was introduced by means of an amendment during the Committee Stage of the Fund-raising Bill in 1978. I noticed that the hon. member for Hillbrow consulted a large number of books during his speech. He reminded me of the story that if one quotes so many authorities he does not have a good case. The more authorities one quotes in the legal world the worse one’s case is, and I think the hon. member knows it.

I did it to convince you.

I will only quote one authority and that is Lord Coke, who, in referring to this particular issue, said—

[Interjections.] He definitely did not say that of this House!

*The hon. member must know that a jurist said this, and not a doctor.

†This organization as such cannot knowingly or unknowingly do something. That hon. member hit the nail on the head in respect of one point that he made. He came to a point where he said two things, but here he was completely wrong. He said that this word was being removed to make it more difficult for people to participate. However, it does not touch anybody who participates in fundraising. If one reads the clause, one sees that it is easy for anyone to understand. The clause reads as follows—

That does not mean the fund-raiser. It does not mean that one is now knowingly going to catch the man in the street who is raising funds. However, if the management and control have not kept proper records of the Fund, have embezzled some of the money or used it for purposes other than the purposes the funds have been collected for, one obviously has to get hold of somebody. Does one prosecute the Fund, or does one prosecute someone who has actually embezzled the money? I think that it is important for two particular reasons. The hon. member asked why this was being introduced. Our legal advisers said that this was actually meaningless. The hon. member for Hillbrow said in his second point that it was going to make prosecution easier. Does he now want to make it more difficult for the hon. the Minister to prosecute people, via the Act, who have embezzled money?

If someone embezzles money, he does so knowingly.

If a person can put a few thousand rands in his pocket, although it was collected for a specific purpose, for example for cripple people, in order to buy a motor-car for himself, and then says that he did not know that he may not buy a motor-car—this is the argument of the hon. member for Pinelands, he should rather confine himself to things which he knows something about. I am now talking to the hon. member for Hillbrow.

I took part in this debate last year. You were not even here then.

The debate did not take place last year, but in 1978. Thus the hon. member could not have participated in it last year.

Still you were not there. I was.

I think the hon. member for Hillbrow is proposing that we should leave the word in the legislation. At this stage I want to tell him that I am not prepared to leave the word there. This House will have to decide whether it wants to leave the word there, but I propose that we should eliminate the word. I want to reiterate that it is not aimed at the people who collect, but only at people who do not keep a record of the money they have collected. It is thus aimed at people who collect money for one purpose and then use it for another.

I want to thank other hon. members who participated in the discussion, and I suggest that these words remain as they are.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the quotation by the hon. the Minister, I should like to quote to him in reply from Gardiner and Lansdown, from Vol. 1 of the sixth edition, in order to deal with this point. The quotation can be found on page 78—

He continues—

The hon. the Minister asks us whether we are going to encourage malpractice. Of course not. We do not want to encourage malpractice and we shall support the hon. the Minister, if malpractice takes place in fund-raising organizations, in seeing that justice is done. That is not the intention, but the omission of the word “knowingly” does not do that. The omission of the word “knowingly” puts off people who might want to participate in fund-raising, because they are frightened that something like this will happen and that they will be prosecuted. The hon. the Minister asked how one can prosecute an organization, and I have just told him how. It is a company, it is a legal persona, it is a juristic person. Therefore in terms of section 381(1)(5) of the Companies Act the director or the secretary is prosecuted.

Then the hon. the Minister asks us whether we want to protect the person who embezzles and therefore make it easier for him to get off on a charge of embezzlement.

That is what you said. I quoted you.

No, I said “contravention”. The hon. the Minister brought in examples of embezzlement: He was the one who brought in the examples of the taking of money from fund-raising. I have a very simple answer for the hon. the Minister. Embezzlement and the stealing of money are not contraventions of this Act. They are classified as normal crimes of theft in law. The ordinary offence of theft in law— embezzlement as it is known in the English law, and theft in our law—can then take place. The person who has stolen the money is brought before the court and prosecuted for theft. Even then, on a charge of theft, the onus is still on the State to prove mens rea, i.e. that there was an intention. Therefore the hon. the Minister is removing a defence which a person had when he contravened the law by, for example, failing to render a return in terms of the regulations which are promulgated in terms of the Fund-raising Act. The hon. the Minister is now making it a criminal offence for that person. He will now have to be prosecuted. Does the hon. the Minister intend encouraging people to take part in the work of welfare organizations, or is he discouraging them? I finally ask the hon. the Minister please to reconsider this matter and let the word “knowingly” stand.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we in these benches must also indicate to the hon. the Minister—in his reply he said that we in these benches supported the principal Act of 1978; he said he had read the Hansard—that if he had read that Hansard he would have seen that we in these benches supported the Bill, but with reservations. We considered the Bill at that stage to have a degree of over-kill, which was unnecessary, and we moved a large number of amendments to the principal Act when it was debated in this House. A large number of amendments, however, had already been placed on the Order Paper by the official Opposition. So obviously we, as a second Opposition party, could not be expected to repeat a whole lot of other amendments that had already been placed on the Order Paper by the official Opposition. I am quite sure that if the hon. the Minister had been present he would also have known that we did not object to the amendment inserting the word “knowingly”, because it was part of our intention to see that the Bill was improved at Committee Stage. We supported the principal Act at Second Reading but clearly indicated that we intended moving a large number of amendments in the Committee Stage to try to improve the Bill as it stood at that stage. Therefore to now accuse us of having supported this provision in 1978 just does not hold water. It is not in accordance with the facts. We clearly indicated what our line was and supported the amendment for the insertion of the word “knowingly”. The welfare organizations were deeply concerned about the provisions of the Bill as it stood at that stage, because it would place them in a position where it would be difficult for them to know whether or not they were contravening certain provisions of that particular piece of legislation which is now the principal Act. That still remains the position today, and I do not think that the hon. the Minister has given good enough reasons why he should delete the word “knowingly” from this clause.

We believe that the hon. the Minister is making a mistake by not allowing this clause to go through in its present form, by retaining the word “knowingly” and merely prescribing for the penalty, as indicated in the long title of the Bill, where it is said: “to prescribe the penalty for a certain offence”. We believe that that would be sufficient to meet the aim of the Bill, which is to bring about a degree of control. Surely we do not want a situation of over-kill in regard to these aspects involving volunteers in welfare organizations and the malpractices they may commit from time to time. Everyone agrees that there may be such malpractices from time to time, but at the same time let us adopt a reasonable attitude towards the type of legislation with which we wish to ensure so that those malpractices can be dealt with, having this act as a deterrent and at the same time seeing that these people are not placed in an invidious position when they are accepting office in these organizations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I briefly want to state the view of this side of the House. This Bill contains the first amendments to the Act of 1978 which was discussed at great length in this House.

Admittedly the Bill contains a number of good provisions. We do not decry it and support the hon. the Minister in respect of these provisions with which it is aimed to plug some of the gaps in the original legislation, to tidy up the position with regard to active service and to provide for auxilliary services, including the Cape Corps. These are welcome provisions.

We even went so far as to support the hon. the Minister in regard to the proposed section 27. As far as the word “knowingly” in the proposed section 27 is concerned, the problem we have is that the existing Act stipulates an offence but does not provide for a penalty. In this Bill provision is made for a penalty, and in this we support the hon. the Minister.

We do not want to decry the good aspects of this Bill, but we feel very strongly about the hon. the Minister’s lack of understanding and his unwillingness to co-operate and to meet not only our case, but also the case we have presented on behalf of welfare organizations and people who participate in the activities of welfare organizations, because I am sure all of us in this House have the good of the welfare organizations at heart and know that we have to rely upon John Citizen to keep these fund-raising organizations and welfare organizations going. Because we feel so strongly about it and because we feel that this is a deterrent to people actively participating in the activities of these organizations, for fear of prosecution for an offence which they can commit without knowing about it, we shall vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches are also disappointed that the hon. the Minister has failed to satisfy us in regard to the reasons why he should proceed with clause 5. The Committee of the whole House decided, however, that the clause should be proceeded with. The situation, as we see it, is that the Bill nevertheless brings about certain improvements in so far as other aspects are concerned and in particular those affecting the S.A. Defence Force Fund. We therefore feel, as we indicated during the Second Reading debate, that we still ought to accept the principle involved. We expressed our concern about clause 5 of the Bill just as we now express our disappointment that clause 5 is proceeded with. It should be borne in mind that the long title of the Bill indicates that the Bill is aimed at prescribing a penalty for a certain offence. The mere deletion of the word “knowingly” is in our view not sufficient reason to vote against the good provisions contained in the remainder of the Bill. We shall therefore support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo. In my opinion good sense triumphed over emotion when he realized that all we are doing is improving the legislation. It was not for nothing that the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book, and as far as we are concerned this is a serious matter. Whenever we can improve it, we shall not hesitate to do so. Indeed, the law advisers have indicated to what extent we can improve it, and we are following their advice.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Hillbrow that it is not necessary to resort to harsh words in this House if I cannot give him his way. He says that their reason for intending to vote against the Third Reading is my “lack of understanding”. I could say the same about him.

†I am surprised at the lack of understanding. I fail to see why the hon. member cannot understand my explanation that the word “knowingly” does not have the effect he thinks it has. The hon. member says that the deletion of the word will make prosecution easier and it will also make it more difficult for voluntary workers to participate. I want to make it quite clear that the deletion of the word “knowingly” has nothing to do with voluntary workers. I have already reiterated this on two occasions during the debates. Should the hon. member want me to read the clause again, I would gladly oblige. After all, it is one of the shortest clauses.

*It seems to me that the briefer the clause, the more difficult it is. If the hon. member were to reread the clause, he would note that it only concerns those who in fact have control. If they can take cover behind the word by arguing that they had acted unwittingly in one way or another, and get away with it, then surely that will not have the desired effect. Why should we have lengthy court cases about a word which is in fact insignificant and of no value in the legislation?

The hon. member quoted certain rulings and findings, but I have already referred to some of them in the course of the Second Reading debate. It is possible that in many cases one would be able to charge these people in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act. I also pointed this out during the Second Reading debate, and therefore what he told me is not news to me.

The aim of the amendments is to make the legislation more acceptable and easier to control. We are effecting these amendments on the advice of the law advisers. What we are dealing with here does not concern the ordinary worker, but the control. Then, too, I want to point out that it is of the utmost importance that in the case of all these organizations we should be in a position to keep a watchful eye over their funds. There must be penal provisions in terms of which action may be taken if the funds are administered incorrectly. It is due to these specific reasons that I was not prepared during the Committee Stage to permit the word in question to be included in the legislation.

†It is not because of a lack of co-operation and understanding; it is actually because of a good understanding of the facts.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday during the Second Reading of this Bill I spoke at some length about the problems which existed in the past and which still exist in respect of the distinction to be made between artistic work eligible for copyright on the one hand and a design eligible for patent protection on the other hand, and the persistent problems which have arisen in defining the two. Difficulties have arisen in the writing of a law which will be sufficiently clear not to cause the kind of confusions which we discussed at some length during the Second Reading yesterday.

I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by repeating the arguments I used yesterday. The hon. the Minister will recall that I referred to the fact that it was precisely this difficulty, as well as one or two others, which led the Select Committee to recommend to the then Minister that an advisory committee should be appointed to maintain a continuing review of these problems in order to continue to clarify the law of copyright. That request was acceded to by the then Minister and is to be found in section 40 of the existing legislation. I believe that that advisory committee has already fulfilled some good purpose and will continue to do so if given a proper opportunity of continuing making the land of proposals compromising between the various contentious elements which have arisen in respect of this Bill, and in general, trying to simplify and clarify legislation which has become of great importance in the economic and industrial scenes.

We will therefore go no further at this stage than to ask the hon. the Minister for an assurance that in respect of clause 2 of this Bill, in respect of the matters which we seek to amend in clause 2, and which, I think, by mutual consent, are not yet defined to our total satisfaction, he will give this advisory committee every encouragement, every inducement, to continue with its work so that in due course we may consider a Bill in this House which will bring the legislation to a greater state of clarity than that which exists at the present time. With that assurance we will be satisfied and we shall not oppose the Bill on account of the present wording of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I took note of the problems raised by the hon. member for Constantia yesterday. At that stage I did not have the facts at my disposal, but since then I have ascertained that, taking into account the assurance that is also provided in law in Section 40, these commitments and undertakings are still being honoured. As far back as 28 November 1979, an author’s conference was convened by the CSIR to discuss this very issue of copyright and industrial design, as they put it.

The participants at the conference differed with one another in regard to certain aspects. For example, they differed with one another about the question whether engineering drawings fell under the present Act and whether, on the other hand, copyright should cover the industrial sphere. Attention was given to the matter. As far as engineering drawings are concerned, people have still not been able to reach finality. The advisory committee nominated three people from its ranks to investigate the matter. The S.A. Institute of Patent Agents also began to consult with these people. At the moment a subcommittee of the advisory committee on copyright is giving attention to this matter. The S.A. Institute of Patent Agents regards this matter as of the utmost urgency, but on the other hand they also regard it as a matter which they must investigate in great depth so that a satisfactory solution may be found. Since the advisory committee expects to resolve this matter shortly, I cannot at this stage give effect to a further departure or change in the legislation this year. That is the reason.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to explain to the hon. the Minister that we are not seeking the assurance that the legislation will be amended. We are not seeking the assurance that he will amend it now. The only assurance we requested is that the advisory committee be permitted to continue with the work it has done so far. As long as we are assured of that progress, we are prepared to support the present words, although they are inadequate.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that and I can give the hon. member that assurance.

Mr. Chairman, we discussed the contents of clause 9 at some length last night. Briefly, what it amounts to is that this clause provides that the copyright of a work made by an employee vests in his employer. That is a very important provision, with a view to the consequences that could arise out of this in industry.

As we stressed last night, this provision was already on the Statute Book before the passing of the 1978 legislation. It was deleted by that legislation, and is now being reinserted. We welcome and support this. However, since the 1978 legislation only came into operation on 1 January 1979, if this clause is accepted today there will have been a period of close to 18 months during which the Act was different, a period during which the copyright vested in the employee, unless he had concluded a special agreement with his employer. Given the nature of the Copyright Act and the period of validity of copyright, this could mean that there may be uncertainty for a period of 80 years or more with regard to works made during that interim period, a period of 16 to 18 months, as I have already said. That uncertainty, which will persist far into the future, is in my opinion highly undesirable. That is why we said last night that we should like to see this clause— and I repeat that we shall strongly support it—be made of retrospective effect with effect from 1 January 1979. We say this in the full realization that retroactive legislation is in general undesirable and that it is something which should only be permitted by way of exception. However, we believe that in this regard there is a strong case for it. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (3) The provisions of this section shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 January 1979.

Mr. Chairman, last night I began by recognizing the validity of the arguments advanced by hon. members opposite. In fact, I myself was amazed that this had not been considered when the recommendations of the advisory committee regarding this amendment Bill were made initially. As I promised, the chairman and the secretary of the advisory committee were contacted. The secretary first conceded the point that the board did not like making legislation retrospective. The chairman put it clearly that they had deliberately not requested that the legislation be made retrospective because since 1 January 1979, due to the alternations to section 21, a number of agreements have come into being which have led to people now having established rights. They also conducted discussions with some of these people and did not receive a single request that legislation be made retrospective. Because this was so they deliberately omitted to ask that it be made retrospective and because they did not ask that, the Government felt that we should rather not interfere with established rights since we did, after all, have to listen to the advice of this committee. If problems do crop up in the future, we shall have to reconsider the position, but at this stage, having again consulted with these people, the advice is still that it must remain as it stands. Therefore I regret that I cannot accommodate the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, it is cause for gratitude that since last night the hon. the Minister has taken all that trouble and I express my appreciation for his having done so. It is not quite clear to me exactly who the people are who were consulted and who have now said that they have no objection. I know that in the majority of cases the employers would have seen to it that agreements were entered into with their employees who made the works. In none of those cases have any problems cropped up, because the copyright, in terms of that agreement, has vested in the employer. I see that. What I am afraid of is that drawings may be lying around somewhere which have not yet been used and in regard to which no copyright agreement has been entered into. After many years, use may be made of them in industry, as in the case which I put forward yesterday by way of illustration. Such cases may give rise to legal proceedings in the distant future. I therefore want to say in all friendliness that although I realize that the committee has given attention to this matter, and although I appreciate this, I am still not convinced that the danger I have outlined does not exist.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has a point there, but I think that the matter he referred to is linked to what I have already said to the hon. member for Constantia, namely that as regards the whole issue of industrial drawings, or engineering drawings, the use thereof and the rights in connection therewith, it may be necessary that if hon. members know of similar cases they should bring them to our attention so that in the course of its discussions and investigations, the Committee can investigate whether they have not perhaps overlooked the aspect in question. With the facts and the advice at my disposal I really cannot agree to this amendment at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to conclude the remarks I was making when the debate was adjourned last night. I was referring to the proposed new section 32A(4) in which provision has been made for any inspector, who is to be appointed in terms of the Bill, to produce, on request from any person who is going to be affected by the exercising of the powers given to such inspector, an inspection authority in writing furnished to him in accordance with subsection (1). I said that this was a vindication of the stand which had been taken repeatedly by the former member for Berea on many Bills which came before the House which empowered inspectors or officials of the State to perform certain duties. I am sure hon. members who sat in the House during the past few years will recall how he repeatedly said that it was in the interests of all concerned that an inspector empowered by the State to perform certain duties should, when entering any property or office, produce some form of authority in writing to clearly show the people that he was a bona fide official of the State. I want to place it on record that this shows that the Government has adopted a new line of thinking, because in the past the former member for Berea was often criticized by hon. members on the other side of the House for having put forward that proposal. Now we find, however, that the hon. the Minister has included this provision, which I think is a very good one, in the Bill. I would go a little further and say that in the public interest it would be a very good practice for such an inspector, not upon request, but as a matter of habit or normal practice, to produce his written authority and show it to the person whose office or—in this case books—he is coming to inspect, and to do so as he enters the person’s office or home. I think this is just good public relations on the part of officials of the State or any board set up by the State. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that his department adopt this attitude. As I said last night, we are supporting the Bill. We believe that the provisions which are now included in it give greater teeth to the Estate Agents Board to insure that estate agents are better qualified, that they carry out their duties in the correct manner, that they are penalized if they interfere with trust funds and generally do not carry out their duties as one would expect them to do. We think they are very good provisions, and these are the reasons why we are supporting the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to deal with two aspects of the Bill. Firstly, I want to focus attention on the position of the estate agent, in terms of the present legislation, should he commit any offence or contravene the provisions of this section. The following situation can arise. Firstly, in terms of clause 4, which relates to section 9 of the principal Act, should the estate agent fail to carry out any duty imposed upon him by this section, an investigation can take place and the board can recover the costs of the investigation. He therefore now faces costs against him. Secondly, in terms of clause 9, which relates to section 30 of the principal Act, the board can in addition impose a fine of up to R1 000 on an estate agent. Thirdly, should he commit an offence, and I am now referring to clause 14, which deals with section 34 of the principal Act, his failure to comply, which would bring him to court, would then make him subject to a fine of R5 000 or to imprisonment for a period of five years. We obviously agree that the law must be administered and that in order to do so we need proper control. I should like to focus the attention of the House on this matter and ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks it is fair that in the case of a contravention all three of these provisions should be imposed on the estate agent. I am not quite sure how we can do it by means of legislation at this stage, but should we not prevail upon the board, the executive committee which has now been appointed by the estate agents. If an offence is committed in terms of this Act, and the matter has been referred to the Attorney-General or the public prosecutor, who then decides to indict that estate agent, can the board not consider imposing a penalty on him until such time as the court has disposed of the matter and imposed a fine or the penalty, as the case may be. I think that is the way I should like to see things done, and I should also like to draw to the hon. the Minister’s attention that it is no good trying to punish the man three times for the same offence. I think one punishment should be quite sufficient.

The second point I wish to raise is in support of the hon. member for Parktown’s reaction to a statement of the hon. the Minister who, in dealing with clause 12, stated that he was holding over the provisions of that clause and that he would deal with the matter in the Other Place. The hon. member for Klerksdorp, who is the chairman in the Commission of Inquiry into Share-Block Schemes, indicated to this House that in terms of that proposal attorneys will be able to accept moneys in trust because they have a fidelity Fund, and so will estate agents. We therefore recognize that the fact that fidelity fund certificates can be issued to both attorneys in terms of their profession, and to estate agents in terms, I think, of section 16 of the principal Act, is sufficient to safeguard the public. In view of what the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, I should now like him to assist us. My difficulty now is how the difficulty raised by the Law Society can be met in terms of clause 12 which deals with the duties of inspectors and what they can do, and let me define that difficulty very clearly. The difficulty is that we have a definition which excludes attorneys. The definition states, and I quote from section 1(d) of the Estate Agents Act of 1976—

The difficulty that arises is, and I quote from a letter from the Law Society—

I therefore think that the problem lies in the definition, and this is where I should like to see the hon. the Minister establishing in what way this can be resolved in so far as clause 12 is concerned. The hon. the Minister is going to amend the definition to cure two aspects of that definition. The definition does not include the attorney’s articled clerk, his typist, his secretary, or anyone working in his office. That is the first difficulty, and that is why the Attorney-General had apparently given his opinion in regard to this. The second part of this definition is in connection with his activities as a practising attorney. If he is acting on behalf of a client, that is in order as far as the definition is concerned, because he is then not an estate agent on his own. However, if they do one or perhaps even two transactions-per year, if they are lucky, as many attorneys do, and they are instrumental in the buying or selling of property, they will be classified under the Estate Agents Act and fall under that Act. These are the two difficulties arising out of the definition. I hope that the hon. the Minister will clarify this matter this afternoon and that these discussions between the estate agents and the Law Society will contribute towards a solution to cure the anomaly that exists in the law, because there is no doubt that as far as the Fidelity Fund of the attorneys is concerned it is sufficient to cover and safeguard the members of public just as much as the Estate Agents Fidelity Fund certificate does.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members who have taken part in the debate. Without wishing to drag out the debate, I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that he referred to the same item as that which the other member on the other side of the House has just raised, although he did it in a different way, viz. the issue of the provisions of the Estate Agents Act and the application thereof to attorneys. This is a matter which has been the subject of discussion for some time now, and there is no provision in this legislation to settle the question of the definition and interpretation of what constitutes an attorney’s work as an estate agent or otherwise, viz. the position of the attorney is not provided for here. The old definition still applies. The problem is in respect of the interpretation of that definition, and this is not an aspect of this legislation. This is an aspect which is at present being investigated by the Association of Law Societies and the Estate Agents Board. I convened a meeting of these people a week or two ago. It is for them to continue with this. The two things go together; the definition of an estate agent, and the extent to which an attorney can succeed in separating his work as estate agent from the work he does as an attorney. This is something that they will have to settle. In fact we are dealing with two professions, although the historical position is that the work of an estate agent has in the past been performed by members of the attorneys’ profession. Accordingly there is a problem, and one we are trying to solve. Because these people must settle the matter among themselves, I am not going to attempt to lay down the interpretation thereof in legislation. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot tell the hon. member that I shall be able to solve this problem personally at this stage. However, I can tell the hon. member that differences do exist, and that I will in fact be able to solve the problem by definition of the inspectors’ investigations. Complaints have been received —and apparently this causes the hon. member concern—to the effect that these inspectors want to investigate everything. There is no separation between an attorney’s work as an estate agent, on the one hand, and as an attorney on the other. Attorneys can take it that there can be no interference in their professional activities by a person who is not competent to do so. That is understandable. We have tried to bring it home to the attorneys that this is not the case. It cannot be expected that an inspector should have the right to carry out an investigation into matters dealt with by an attorney in the normal course of his work.

†However, consultations will be proceeded with under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Commerce and Consumer Affairs. It is because I first want them to reach a conclusion, to come to some sort of understanding, that I have decided to postpone the promulgation of the proposed section 12. The State President will then issue a proclamation as to when the proposed section will come into effect.

*I shall leave that aspect at that for the moment. Hon. members have also discussed the considerations taken into account by the Minister when he appoints members of the executive committee of the board. I must say that surely the Minister does not appoint the executive committee. The Minister designates eight members from a panel submitted to him. Then they themselves select three members of the executive from this panel. At present, these three members are; an attorney appointed by virtue of his legal knowledge, and one member each out of the Coloured and Indian communities who also practise as estate agents. This is the situation at present.

Another issue raised here is the question of the inspectors.

†The inspector carries with him a card, some sort of identification. The hon. member might perhaps not recollect it, but it was I myself who eventually acceded to the request by the former member for Berea in a medical debate that such a form of identification should in fact be carried. However, at the time we felt—and we still feel the same—that one should not actually force this man to carry this document as a sort of a label on his coast. But he should keep it with him and produce it on demand. If he has the right approach and a sense of public relations, he will show it in any case. If he does not have that understanding of public relations, he may not do so, but if a member of the public asks for it, he must show it. We feel that we do not want to impose this extra duty, this onerous task upon him which might create some embarrassment. That is why I feel that we cannot accede to that request at this stage.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Klerksdorp and other hon. members who have taken part in this debate.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow talked about the question of fines. I really cannot express my views on this. The Board of Estate Agents decided on this. They came with this and they work with the various estate agents. They know what amounts of money are involved and realize the severity of the actual discrepancies which exist. These people are working with a lot of public money. I was told that up to R1 million is kept by them from time to time in the course of attending to the interests of the public at large. That is why they are handling big money and that is why the board felt that these fines should be increased. I have accepted it and I am not in a position to change it. I shall therefore stick by it.

I think I have already answered the hon. member as far as clause 12 is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

1. (1) On page 5, in line 44, after “amended” to insert “—(a)”;
2. (2) on page 7, after line 4, to add:
   1. (b) by the substitution for the words preceding paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of the following words:

1. (a) the claimant has, within three months after he became aware of such theft or failure or by the exercise of reasonable care should have become aware of such theft or failure, given notice in writing to the board of such claim;”.

The amendment of section 18(1) which I am now moving has the effect that a failure by an estate agent can constitute additional grounds for a claim, together with theft. It often happens that an estate agent does not deposit money in a trust account and that they are in many ways extremely careless with the money they deal with on behalf of a client. It is felt that the word “theft” alone is inadequate as grounds for a claim. Accordingly the words “or failure” are being inserted after the word “theft”. The Estate Agents Board feels that this is an improvement of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman I move the following amendment—

I have just explained that we shall put section 12 into operation after we have obtained a solution in the negotiations between the two societies. I take it that this is generally acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 21(2) of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, 1979 (Act 96 of 1979) was included in the Act in order to provide that all notices published in terms of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955 (Act 24 of 1955) would remain valid after the former Act, which repealed the latter Act, came into operation, so that the Competition Board could proceed with the activities of the Board of Trade and Industries in so far as they related to monopolistic conditions.

Since the above-mentioned Act came into operation on 1 January 1980, however, doubt has arisen as to the legal validity of the activities of the Competition Board in regard to—

1. (a) Investigations which the Board of Trade and Industries commenced before the above-mentioned Act came into operation, but which have not yet been completed;
2. (b) the validity of Government Notice No. R. 1038 of 25 June 1969 relating to the prohibition of retail price maintenance; and
3. (c) the validity of other arrangements or agreements with interested parties concluded by the Board of Trade and Industries since the coming into operation of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955 (Act 24 of 1955), in 1955 in terms of the provisions of the Act in question.

In order to eliminate this uncertainty with regard to the position of the Competition Board, it is necessary to amend section 21(2) of the Maintenance and Promotion of Competition Act, 1979, accordingly.

However, to ensure that work carried out by the Competition Board since the principal Act came into operation on 1 January 1980 in this particular regard cannot be called into question, it is also necessary that the provisions of the proposed amending Act be made applicable retrospectively with effect from the date in question.

Mr. Speaker, we can think of no reason whatsoever why this Bill should be opposed in any way. We shall support it and will also assist in taking it through all its stages with as little delay as possible.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NRP I merely rise to state that we shall be supporting this Bill through all stages.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I shall have to discuss this Bill a little more. In his Enquiry into the Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith wrote—

That is perhaps overstated, but the public must be protected against trade practices and actions that restrict free competition. When agreements to maintain prices have been concluded between sellers, prices are artificially maintained at a high level, and that is not in the public interest. One measure which seeks to protect price competition is the regulation which will be contained in the new section 21(2)(b) as proposed in the Bill before the House. In short, what this involves is that a person is prohibited from compelling a retailer, directly or indirectly, to specify an indicated retail price. This regulation is further stipulated on the basis of Act No. 75 of 1978. Despite these provisions, the regulation appeared to be very ineffective since few prosecutions were instituted and thus far there have only been two convictions. The reason for this is largely that it was difficult for the State to obtain evidence, since agreements of this nature are, for the most part, concluded privately. Another reason is that the definition of the offence is framed very widely and that there are also exceptions, without the State’s burden of proof being eased by way of presumptions.

In general, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he submit this measure to the Competition Board so that new regulations could be made by way of section 14 of the principal Act. As the measure stands at present, it is in my opinion extremely inelegant. A section of the measure is contained in a regulation made in terms of an Act that has already been repealed. Another section is contained in Act No. 75 of 1978. Moreover, the penal provision, if it is valid, is contained in another Act, viz. section 8 of the Regulation of Monopolistic Conditions Act, 1955. I suggest that this is an unsatisfactory situation.

I also wish to express my concern about the fact that this penal provision is not valid. No reference is made in the regulation or the 1978 amending Act to the section of the 1955 Act containing the penal provision. Therefore one cannot say that in terms of the new section 21(2)(a), the penal provisions of the 1979 Act apply. In any event, there is no indication which of the three penal provisions must apply in the Act.

This would not be a desirable situation even if the penal provision of 1955 were to apply, because section 8 of the Act lays down a maximum fine of R20 000, while the equivalent penal provision of the 1979 Act lays down a maximum fine of R100 000 or imprisonment of five years or both. This is a far more appropriate penal provision since large companies will not soon be deterred by a fine of R20 000.

The new section 21(2)(c) of the principal Act provides that an arrangement made by the Board of Trade and Industries will be deemed to be an arrangement made by the Competition Board in terms of the 1979 Act. Seven of these arrangements are in force, namely the arrangements entered into with the grocery dealers, the biscuit manufacturers, the Federation of Sanitary ware Manufacturers, the Tobacco Manufacturers Committee, the CNA, BIFSA and Samba, a buying association in Bloemfontein. It is in the public interest that these arrangements remain in force.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members on both sides of the House once again for having supported the amendments. I think it is essential that we eliminate loopholes. It is true that loopholes and doubts arose very soon in this regard. These people began their task at a time when there were quite a lot of companies that monopoly formation was being permitted even by the Government. I can assure hon. members that even in cases where the Government is being charged, the board is at present engaged in investigations. I am very pleased that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North raised that interesting point. The law advisers were asked the specific question whether this penal provision still applies, and they are sure that this is in fact the case. We shall therefore have to see what the findings of the court are in the future. According to our advice it still applies. Nevertheless I am very pleased that the hon. member has carried out research in this regard and has gone into the matter. The agreements are also being legalized. This is being announced in the Gazette. Although there is no real price control, agreements are entered into when a monopolistic situation arises, to the effect that the company or body concerned should act in such a way as not to prejudice the public. The seven agreements referred to still exist and will continue to exist.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Rand Afrikaans University was established in terms of the Rand Afrikaans University Act, 1966. It was officially opened in February 1968, so it has been in existence for 12 years. I think it is fitting, on this occasion briefly to take stock of the past 12 years of the existence of this institution and to pose the question whether the Rand Afrikaans University has succeeded in achieving the purpose for which it was established. I believe that the object of the establishment of the RAU was, inter alia, to meet a need for an Afrikaans university to serve the growing Afrikaans-speaking community on the Witwatersrand and to place it within the financial means of young people to undertake advanced studies, whether after hours while employed in a full-time occupation, or fulltime while still living with their parents.

When I speak of the growing Afrikaner community on the Witwatersrand, I wish to confirm what I say with a single figure. In 1947, there were six Afrikaans-medium high schools and 26 English-medium high schools on the Witwatersrand. At present there are 42 Afrikaans-medium high schools and 41 English-medium high schools on the Witwatersrand. From this one can gather that the Afrikaans-speaking community on the Rand has grown tremendously during this period. It has been calculated that at present the total Afrikaans-speaking population on the Witwatersrand is 450 000. What is important, is that it is assumed that this is about one-fifth of the total Afrikaans-speaking community of the Republic. So I think there is justification for stating that the greatest concentration of Afrikaans-speaking people is to be found in this area. It is also a fact that owing to various economic and social factors, the Afrikaans community on the Witwatersrand did not experience the intellectual development one would have expected. It is an unfortunate fact that whereas for the Transvaal as a whole, the percentage of Standard 6 pupils who go on to pass matric, has increased dramatically from 17% to 65% during the period 1940 to 1978, the comparative figure for the Rand is at present only 40%. So one could state that there are still too many Afrikaans-speaking pupils on the Rand who do not complete matric, and that there are not enough matriculants who can afford to further their studies at a university.

Against this background I wish to state that I think the RAU has been exceptionally successful in fulfilling an important role in this community on the Witwatersrand. I think we could say that although the RAU is the youngest White residential university in South Africa, it most certainly has the greatest growth potential. In fact, although it is the youngest university, its growth rate has already surpassed that of two other universities. We are aware that most universities have been experiencing a decline in their growth rate during recent years and it is against this background that the outstanding growth of the RAU should in fact be measured. If we consider the student numbers for 1979, it appears that the average growth rate of all White residential universities, excluding the University of South Africa, was 1,5%. In the same year, the growth rate of RAU was in excess of 11%. The university that approximated most closely to that, had a growth rate of just over 3%. I think this single figure confirms that the RAU has succeeded in its role of establishing a place of learning for the Afrikaans-speaking community on the Rand.

With regard to the future, I wish to express the hope that the RAU will still be afforded an opportunity of training engineers.

As has already been indicated, the RAU is situated in the midst of the largest concentration of Afrikaans-speaking people in the Republic and at the same time the greatest and strongest industrial area in the country. I am of the opinion that the growth potential indeed justifies the RAU being afforded an opportunity of training engineers to meet the needs of the metropolis.

I come now to the Bill itself. On the basis of experience in the administration during the past 12 years, it has become necessary to effect certain adjustments in the existing statute of the university. These are of minor importance in that there are no adjustments to the principle. I just wish to deal briefly with the most important amendments now.

In the first place, section 1 of the principal Act is being amended to make provision for the definition of “Minister” by substituting the words “National Education” for the words “Education, Arts and Science”. In the second place, section 5 of the principal Act is being amended by making provision for the post of vice-principal or vice-principals, and similarly, sections 8 and 10 of the principal Act are being amended to provide that vice-principals may also become members of the senate, even though they are not professors at the university. In the third place, provision is being made in section 9 of the principal Act for a procedure whereby the three persons who represent the Rand municipalities on the University Council, will be designated by the Council of Reef Municipalities. In the past the provision was that the local authorities should designate the representatives on the council of the university. Because that was cumbersome and time consuming, the necessary amendment is being effected here. A further amendment of section 9 of the principal Act provides that a member of the Council shall be designated by the “Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit-stigtersvereniging” and not by the “RAU-vereniging”. This has become necessary as a result of a change in the name of this association. Furthermore, provision is being made in section 10 for a change in the denomination of registrar (administration) to registrar (academic) and registrar (finance and business administration) to registrar (finance). Also, it is now being provided in section 10(f) that in compliance with certain agreements with non-university institutions in terms of the National Education Policy Act, the principal of such an institution may be appointed as a member of the senate.

It is provided in section 16 of the principal Act that a graduate of another university or a person who has passed an equivalent examination at another university, may be admitted to the RAU with an equal status. But it does sometimes happen in practice that a person does not possess formal university qualifications, yet has in fact, in some other way, attained a high level of competence in his particular field of study. To grant such a person admission to a Master’s degree or a Doctorate or to courses of special study and research at the university, it is being proposed to insert a provision to that effect in the principal Act, to bring this into line with the position that already obtains at other universities.

Finally: Section 22 of the principal Act has already lapsed since the statute was promulgated in 1969. So there is no longer any need for such a section, and it is being proposed that it be repealed.

Mr. Speaker, I think a few congratulations are called for on this occasion. In the first place I offer my congratulations to the hon. member for Johannesburg West on the privilege he has had, during his first participation in a session of Parliament, of introducing a private Bill, and then, too, on having done so in such an appropriate and elegant way. We congratulate him on the way in which he has done this. The other congratulations are extended to the RAU, which was established 12 years ago although not without serious misgivings on the part of the people concerned with the matter. It was feared, and not without reason, that there would not be sufficient support, both financially, and in terms of student numbers, for a university that concentrated solely on the promotion of Afrikaans tertiary education in Johannesburg, a city which up to that stage had always been regarded by Afrikaners and Afrikaner circles as being very hostile to the Afrikaner cause, and where it was felt that the Afrikaners who lived and worked there were for the most part people with a below-average income and ability. However, experience has shown precisely the opposite to be true. One does not wish to draw comparisons, because “comparisons are odious” as the English saying goes, but this university has demonstrated that it has vitality and a growth potential which astounded even the most optimistic people among us. The strange thing is that support has not only been forthcoming from Afrikaans-speaking Johannesburgers or from people on the Witwatersrand, but that other groups and people of other languages contributed generously to the prosperity and the welfare of this university— and are still doing so. I think to a great extent this type of catholic support is attributable to the provisions of section 20 of the principal Act. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it was stated in the preamble to the principal Act that there existed a desire that a university that was Afrikaans in spirit and character be established on the Witwatersrand. But the sectionalism which could possibly be inferred from that is refuted by section 20 of the principal Act which provides that a student, research worker, professor, lecturer or other teacher or member of the administrative or library staff shall be admitted to the University on the grounds of his academic and administrative qualifications and abilities; in other words no distinction is drawn on a sectional basis, whether in regard to religion, race, language, etc. Since then, under the very able guidance of Prof. Gerrit Viljoen, to whom I wish to pay personal tribute for the work he has done there, the university has begun to acquire a distinctive character in the cosmopolitan atmosphere of Johannesburg, a character that is basically Afrikaans, but which also adopts an open-minded attitude to all groups, schools of thought, etc. This is an open university in the best sense of the word and it serves a distinct purpose in the opening up of a debate, if one may call it that, in Johannesburg and environs. We express our sincere congratulations to the university.

As far as the amendment Bill is concerned, there is just one provision which I wish to dwell on briefly and that is clause 7, in terms of which a new principle is being introduced, which is a departure from the old principle that a person should only be admitted to tertiary education if he was in possession of an exemption from the Joint Matriculation Board. In the new section 16(a) there is now a departure from this. This is altogether acceptable to us for the simple reason that in any event it is going to be the senate of this university that is going to determine in each particular case whether a person who has no such exemption, should nevertheless be admitted to the university for training.

It is a pleasure for me to state that we give this amending Bill our wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, as an English-speaking South African it gives me particular pleasure this afternoon to speak in support of this measure which has been introduced—and I concur wholeheartedly with the hon. member who has just resumed his seat—so exceptionally well by a new hon. member of this House. I recollect my days in the back-bench, and believe you me I have nothing but admiration for the hon. member for Johannesburg West for the very fine job he has done here this afternoon. Very often in a Bill of this nature some very interesting points are raised. I think it is appropriate that we should note here this afternoon a point that the hon. member has highlighted and that is that today we find that 20% of our Afrikaans-speaking community live on the Witwatersrand. That came as quite a shock to me, because this is a very far cry indeed from the 1930s, when no more than between 1% and 2% of the Afrikaans-speaking community was living on the Witwatersrand. It shows how far we have come when we see this wonderful university that has been established and we hear of what it has done in the very short space of 12 years. It has shown phenominal growth and is certainly of great benefit to the whole of the Witwatersrand, not only to the Afrikaans-speaking community, but I believe also to English-speaking South Africans like myself. I know of a number who have attended this university and who can do no less than speak well of the university.

The measure before us incorporates some interesting points, the first of which is the fact that one or more vice-principals may now be appointed, and this is in line with the practice at most other universities in South Africa. There are two other provisions that we find particularly interesting. Firstly, there is provision made for the admission of candidates to Masters degrees or higher degrees, e.g. Doctorates, without having passed an examination, and secondly, there is the provision which deals with admission as research students of persons who have not been exempted by the Joint Matriculation Board. We find that both these provisions are most acceptable, because firstly we have complete confidence in this university—in any university, for that matter—and in its ability to guard against any action which may lower standards.

We believe that the concept of university autonomy includes a university’s ability to exercise self-discipline at all times. Secondly, I think it is true to say that the validity of the system of examinations in order to measure scholastic achievements, has been very seriously questioned in education circles during the past three decades. This is something which is dealt with in this measure before us. It is something the university is able to assess for itself. We agree that it is not always the examination which proves whether or not a person is suited to commence with higher degree studies. It does not necessarily measure a person’s scholastic ability or achievement.

As I have said earlier on, we have great pleasure in supporting this measure. We look forward to the continued growth of this very fine institution which we hope will be with us for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very great privilege for me, on behalf of this side of the House, to support the Bill introduced by the hon. member for Johannesburg West.

When, on 28 September 1966, the Minister of Education, Arts and Science at the time moved the Second Reading, of the Bill that would lead to the establishment of the Rand Afrikaans University, he stated, inter alia, that it was being established to promote the potential of our White population for greater and fuller development. I wish to state on this occasion that the Rand Afrikaans University has in particular made a contribution towards the education and training of the Afrikaans-speaking people on the Witwatersrand to occupy a very useful position in South African society. In the light of the continued growth in the number of Afrikaans-speaking people on the Witwatersrand, I think the University has been established at the right place. The university has achieved many successes, and is still doing so. On this occasion, I wish the university success and everything of the best for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to express my thanks to the hon. members for their support and also for their flattering comments on the RAU. I am grateful to see that it is not only we in the constituency who have appreciation for this particular institution, but also the hon. members here. I wish to thank the hon. members for Johannesburg North, Umhlanga and Hercules for their favourable comments on the university.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Today insurance companies play a major and extremely important part in the mobilization and utilization of the savings of the public. In this way they provide the capital in our free enterprise system. The Old Mutual, established in 1845, is definitely the oldest of these institutions in our country and one of the two giants in the industry. It plays an extremely important part in our economy. Consequently it deserves the attention of this House.

When the Old Mutual was established in 1845, it was not difficult to decide who its members should be. In those days life insurance matters were uncomplicated, and policies other than basic life-long insurance were not conceived of. Consequently the memorandum of agreement merely stated that only those persons who took out life-long insurance on their own lives for amounts of not less than £100 were members. At general meetings members had either one vote or two votes depending on whether their total insurance amounted to less than £500, or more than £500.

Membership of the Society bestows certain rights on the member. Only members may attend a general meeting and vote at that meeting, nominate candidates for election as directors, participate in an election of directors, whenever necessary, and participate in an election of the auditors, and even bring about the removal of one or more directors from their office. Members also have the right to insist that general meetings be convened to discuss specific matters. Consequently they are able to exercise great influence on the way in which the Society is managed.

The last time a material change was effected in the provisions pertaining to membership of the Society and the voting rights of members was in 1888 when the Society was incorporated by an Act of Parliament. Since that time the business of the Society has changed a great deal, particularly during the past two decades, and the board of directors came to the conclusion that the time was ripe to modernize the provisions in regard to membership and voting rights, which are at present contained in Act 52 of 1966, as amended, on the basis of certain principles accepted by them. The proposed amendments, as embodied in the Bill, do not deprive a policy holder who is at present a member of his membership and do not reduce the present number of votes which a member has in the event of a poll. The changes will result primarily in membership being extended to adapt to new circumstances and in a scale of votes being introduced which will be appropriate to the proportion of the various interests of members in the Society.

As further background information it is desirable to describe the various voting procedures applicable in terms of the Incorporating Statute of the Society.

The ordinary procedure for the adopting of resolutions at a general meeting is that it takes place by means of a simple majority of members who are personally present there, by a show of hands, each member having one vote. At a general meeting a poll may be called for by a quarter or more of the members personally present at the meeting. In such a case the poll takes place on the basis of the fluctuating number of votes which each member has for a poll, not only among members who are personally present at the meeting, but also among the members who are present by way of a proxy.

A special voting procedure is adopted for a resolution to amend the Incorporating Statute in terms of section 73. In such a case there is one vote per member present in person or by proxy, and a majority of not less than three quarters is required to pass such a resolution.

The scale of votes, where all members are entitled to vote, applies only in the case of an election of directors, when there are more nominations than vacancies, or in the case of a poll demanded on a decision of the members to remove a director from his office.

Proposed amendments to Incorporating Statute:

1. Amendment of section 2 of the principal Act:

This amendment is merely an informal one. When the consolidating Act of the Society was passed in 1966, the name of the Society in the Afrikaans text was incorrectly stated. This error is now being rectified.

2. Amendment of section 6 of the principal Act:

These amendments all relate to the definition of membership of the Society.

According to the present position the basic requirements for membership is that the person concerned shall himself have effected an assurance contract with the Society or have obtained an assurance contract from another person by way of cession or by operation of law, and shall have procured himself to be registered as a member with the Society.

When this requirement was introduced, all assurances were effected by way of direct contract between the applicants and the Society. Today there are frequently circumstances in which an additional party is involved in the assurance arrangement.

As a first example group schemes are mentioned, for example a group pension fund, group life assurance scheme or group disability scheme. The basic contract here exists between the Society and the person or body referred to as a contractor. The contractor is for example an employer, board of trustees or committee established by an employees’ organization. The members of the scheme derive their benefits via this fundamental contract. In accordance with the present membership provisions of the Society the contractor is a member of the Society, while the participants in the group scheme are not. No change is being proposed in this connection. However, there is another kind of group scheme which has recently being introduced and which differs from the conventional kind in that, while those who qualify to participate in it, do so in accordance with the fundamental contract between the contractor and the Society, they are also required to make a separate application to the Society. The board of directors was of the opinion that such applications did not place them in a position different to that of the participants in any other kind of scheme. Consequently they ought not to be members of the Society either, while the contracting body, which arranged the scheme with the Society, must in fact be a member. The proposed amendments under the contemplated new section 6(3) of the amending Bill state the position clearly and unambiguously.

The other case where an additional party is usually—but not necessarily—involved in the assurance arrangement is a newer development, viz. retirement annuities. The retirement annuity fund bears a close resemblance to a group scheme, in that there is a fundamental contract between the Society and the retirement annuity fund from which the members of the fund derive their assurance benefits. The difference, however, is that while in respect of a group scheme the fundamental contract is essential for the functioning of the scheme, the retirement annuity fund is a body which has merely, through the requirements of the Income Tax Act (for no material reason) been interposed between the Society and the persons who would otherwise have effected their own retirement annuity policies with the Society themselves.

That this interposition is unnecessary is apparent from the fact that the Society has issued retirement annuity policies directly in certain other areas besides South Africa. In South Africa the Commission of Inquiry into the Long-term Insurance Industry recommended in 1976 that life assurers be allowed to do away with retirement annuity funds and to issue retirement annuity policies direct to persons applying for such policies. Where such policies are issued directly the persons involved are members of the Society, but not otherwise. The board of directors was of the opinion that this distinction is wrong and that all retirement annuity policies should for membership purposes be dealt with as though they had been directly issued, and that the retirement annuity fund itself should not be a member of the Society. A point which follows from that is that in terms of the rules of several retirement annuity funds, including those underwritten by the Society, persons cease to be members of the fund as soon as annuity payments commence.

The proposed amendment will also make it clear that a former member of a retirement annuity fund shall be a member of the Society while he is receiving retirement annuity payments from the Society. The above matter is covered by the proposed sections 6(2)(i) and 6(2)(ii), as contained in clause 2.

The present definition of membership does not accord the same treatment to all kinds of assurance. In fact, one kind of policy, viz. a “temporary or short-term assurance without participation in profits” does not count for membership. However, appropriate this exclusion may have in the past, the directors are of the opinion that it is no longer justified. There is nothing in the wide series of products of the Society which does not meet some need or other. The amendments proposed in terms of the new section 6(2)(i) consequently provide that a policy shall not, due to its nature, exclude membership.

3. Amendment of section 7 of the principal Act:

Two changes in connection with cessions are being proposed.

In the first place the position is at present that membership remains unchanged and valid if a policy is ceded to a person by whom the policy is “held in trust for the purposes of a family or other settlement”. However, this provision has proved to entail administrative problems and it is consequently being proposed that membership of the Society in such circumstances shall be transferred to the cessionary.

In the second place the Society in the past followed legal advice that membership does not change if a policy is ceded merely as security for debt or other obligation, i.e. if it is not a direct cession. In order to eliminate all possible uncertainty in this connection it is being proposed that special provision be made to the effect that membership in the case of a security session shall remain vested in the cedent.

It should also be ascertained to what extent the redefinition of membership of the Society makes it necessary to redefine the circumstances in which membership ceases. The only amendment which is being proposed for this reason is the use of specific wording in the case of persons who are not natural persons, for example companies and contractors in respect of group schemes. While the provision that membership of a natural person ceases upon death at the latest, it is being proposed that membership of a non-natural person shall cease at the latest upon its dissolution.

4. Amendment of section 9 of the principal Act:

The next matter to be dealt with is the scale of votes to be adopted at a poll, and the circumstances under which a poll may take place. At present votes for members fluctuate from none—for an annuity costing less than R200 or for any other policy with an amount assured of less than R200—to three—for an annuity costing not less than R2 000, or any other policy with an amount assured of less than R3 000.

It is clear that the original intention was, for the purposes of a poll, to allocate the votes according to a scale, with reasonable regard for how great the member’s interest in the Society was. Over the years the scale became increasingly more difficult to apply. Apart from this consideration there is also the anomaly that certain members may vote by show of hands, but may not vote in the event of a poll.

The directors’ proposals place renewed emphasis on the intention of the drafters of the constitution, viz. that members who have a greater interest in the Society, shall have more votes than those with a lesser interest. However, it has been found necessary and desirable to calculate votes according to other units and to make provision for a greater proportion of votes.

At present the allocation of votes in the case of policies which are not annuity policies, takes place according to amounts assured and in the case of annuities, according to the purchase price. “Amount assured” does not at present mean the same for all the separate business products of the Society and is sometimes meaningless, as in the case of certain group schemes such as pension schemes. The proposed amendment is that vote allocation for policies which are not annuities shall be based on annual premiums, with one vote for every R50, or part of R50, of the annual premium. Where the policy is a single-premium policy, or where premiums are payable for a period which are not the same as the full term of the policy, an equivalent annual premium shall be determined. To ensure that a member does not have fewer votes than at present, the minimum number of votes for a member is being fixed at three. Policies which become paid-up at the request of the policy-holder, or automatically upon the non-payment of premiums, do not qualify for more than the minimum of three votes.

As far as annuities are concerned, the proposed amendment is that votes shall be based on the annuity payment per annum instead of on the purchase price, as at present. In this case there shall be one vote for every R250, or portion thereof, of the annuity allocated per annum. After a study of the age distribution of the retirement annuity policies, from which the most annuities derive for ordinary business, a ratio between votes for annuities and votes for other policies was decided upon. The intention with this ratio is to ensure that the number of votes prior to and after the establishment of the annuities in general manifest a reasonable equilibrium.

A maximum number of 100 votes for a single member is being proposed. This will ensure that the poll is not influenced to too great an extent by one specific member, while at the same time it will provide a series of votes which, for the foreseeable future, will be sufficient for the great diversity of the members’ interests. According to estimates the ordinary member, in other words not group schemes, will on the proposed scale initially have an average of approximately 10 votes, while only about 2% of ordinary members will have the maximum of a 100 votes. The votes of group schemes will initially comprise approximately 4% to 5% of the possible total at a poll.

5. Amendment of section 73 of the principal Act:

Clause 5 refers to section 73 of the Incorporating Statute, which defines how and to what extent the Incorporating Statute may be amended by a resolution of the members of the Society—after confirmation by the Supreme Court.

After the Society, which was established in 1845, was incorporated by Parliament in 1888, changes in the constitution of the Society, in other words the Incorporating Statute, could only be effected by an amending Act of Parliament. This was the case until 1950 when Parliament granted the Society more or less the same power to change its own constitution as that processed by companies governed by the Companies Act. The result was that the Society was thenceforth able, by way of a resolution adopted by a majority of three-fourths of the members present in person or represented by proxy at a general meeting, to amend all the sections in its Incorporating Statute, with the exception of a few which were reserved, provided the amendment was necessary to give effect to one or more specific objectives set out in the Incorporating Statute, and the amendment was subsequently confirmed by the Supreme Court. Since then companies have been allowed considerably greater freedom to amend their articles of association, particularly in terms of the provisions of the Companies Act, 1973.

Companies are no longer restricted to amendments in their objectives which fall within the limitations of their objectives clause. However, this restriction continues to exist in the Incorporating Statute of the Society and is, in fact, a stumbling block when certain minor, but desirable, amendments and improvements have to be effected to the Memorandum of Association. The amendment therefore proposes that the Society shall be accorded the same rights as companies are at present being accorded. It is also being proposed that certain other amendments of lesser importance be effected in section 73. Firstly there are the sections which may only be amended by way of an Act of Parliament, viz. section 2, pertaining to the continued existence of the Society; section 6, pertaining to the definition of membership; section 8, pertaining to the liability of members; section 73 itself and all ensuing sections, i.e. 74 to 81. These latter sections 74 to 81 became automatically entrenched, owing to the use of the word “aforegoing” in section 73. Sections 74 to 78, inclusive, relating to miscellaneous matters such as notices of assignments and the publications of notices, are not fundamental anz ought not to be entrenched. Consequently it is being proposed that sections 74 to 78, inclusive, are sections which may be amended by adopting the procedure in section 73.

Secondly, it is a requirement for the adoption of a resolution, in terms of the procedure laid down in section 73, that no less than three-fourths of the members present in persons or by way of proxy, shall vote in favour of the motion. There is uncertainty as to whether there shall be a vote on the holding of a poll, and it is desirable for this uncertainty to be eliminated.

Thirdly, some provisions of the Companies Act of 1926, are at present being made applicable by section 73. These provisions are no longer applicable because the specific legislation has been substituted, and it is being proposed that the reference to the Companies Act of 1926 be deleted.

Finally I want to say that it is a requirement at present that confirmation of the amendments by the Supreme Court shall be obtained by way of a petition. It is no longer the practice that such confirmation be requested by way of a petition, since the Petition Proceedings Replacement Act, 1976, did away with this procedure. For that reason it is being proposed that the Society’s Statute should simply read that confirmation of the Supreme Court should be obtained “on application”.

Because some of the proposed amendments entailed that the entrenched sections 6 and 73 be changed, which can only be done by an Act of Parliament—this is important—and because it is definitely desirable that all the amendments be effected simultaneously, it is obviously desirable that they should all be effected by the same Act of Parliament.

This private Bill gives effect to the amendments in the Incorporating Statute of the Society, as recommended by the directors and approved by its members in general assembly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Paarl has set out in very great detail all the provisions which relate to this Bill and, so far as we are concerned, we shall support the Bill. However, there are a few comments one should perhaps make. Firstly, the alteration to change the name is, of course, purely a formality. Secondly, the change of the definition in terms of which the determination is made as to who will be members of the society is also acceptable, particularly because events have changed over the years and this particular institution has, of course, existed for so very long a period of time. In fact, the meeting at which these changes were approved was the 134th annual meeting of the Old Mutual, which shows the tremendous history that this institution has in South Africa.

Another matter to which I think one should perhaps refer, is the question of dealing not only with retirement annuities, which are a more modern concept than when originally the statute was drawn up, but also with the group insurance scheme. The group insurance scheme has become a very popular one in South Africa, not only as marketed by this company, but as marketed by many other companies. Unfortunately there is a tremendous misapprehension amongst many members of the community as to what “term group life policy” means.

We have just had the situation in regard to, not the Old Mutual, but another mutual insurer where there has been a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction which has arisen to an extent—not entirely, but to an extent— because of a misapprehension as to what “term group life policy” means. People believe that, when they take out a term group life policy, they are actually acquiring an asset and that, when they have finished paying, the policy will still exist in the same manner as any life insurance policy would exist. An asset would then be created. The truth is that that is not so. The moment one stops paying one’s premiums in respect of a term group life policy, one in fact owns nothing. Therefore I think people should be warned that they should fully understand what type of insurance they are acquiring when they take out insurance. It should be fully understood by them what they are getting themselves involved in. This is particularly so in respect of public servants, in respect of recent problems with the Air Force and in respect of the problems with teachers. It must be made very clear to people what type of policy they are acquiring. I do not for one moment suggest that the Old Mutual representatives have not done so, nor do I suggest that anybody else has not done so, but that misapprehension exists in the community and people must know what they are buying and in what they are putting their money.

Perhaps it is not inappropriate to say at this stage that, in so far as this particular institution is concerned, which is a mutual insurer— and it is not my job to advocate its cause or to state how good or bad its business practices are—and as regards other mutual insurers, they have held the status of the insurance industry very high. These insurers have been an asset to South Africa not only in regard to the provision of insurance for South Africa, but also in respect of their investments in industry and their investments in things which have helped to develop this country. I think South Africa owes a debt to the mutual insurers for the contributions they have made. I should like to take this opportunity of recording that debt which I believe is owed.

Another provision which creates no problem is the amendment to section 7 in respect of cessions. Nor does the amendment to section 73 create a problem. Those are things which to us seem fairly logical. The only one which gave one some little ground for thought is the provision in terms of which the votes which can be cast by individual members are changed. Until now the provision has been that there have been from one to three votes per person. Three has been the maximum number of votes that anyone could cast. That has now been changed and the number is now from one to 100. The provision for one to three votes has existed since 1880 and I think it is logical and fair to say that, quite obviously, the amounts for which people were insured in 1880 have changed between then and now. What does happen, however, is that one now in fact has a greater number of votes for the people who hold the larger policies. One has a greater ability to control a situation put into the hands of a smaller number of people. Therefore, we made some investigations. We consulted to a considerable extent in respect of this matter before we finally adopted a view, because, quite obviously, we should like to see that the small policy-holders are in fact protected. Having investigated, we have come to the conclusion that there is indeed adequate protection. It is clear at the present moment that, as we see it, there are different types of policy-holders and that different people will be entitled to vote and it appears that the average Coloured and Indian insured will have 7,1 votes, the average African 7,1 votes and the average White 9,64 votes in South Africa. That is the way in which insurers have broken it up into, for instance, race groups. That would indicate that there is not a great disparity in respect of this matter. It is interesting that there are still policy-holders and outside South Africa, and in regard to them the percentages are much the same, except for the fact that the figure for Whites increases to about 11,46, and the figure in regard to Blacks increases to 7,34. Therefore, in these circumstances it does appear as if there is no real prejudice to the small man who insures with this particular company.

The other thing which is significant and which should be mentioned here, of course, is that if one takes the number of policy-holders who actually bother to come to a meeting, it is, in fact, very small. With the tens of thousands of people who hold policies with the Old Mutual, only 207 people were represented at the meeting to consider this particular proposal and I understand that most of them were actually employees or other associates of the insurers themselves. So the ordinary policy-holder does not bother to turn up. That is perhaps indifference on the one hand, but on the other hand it may well be confidence in the management of the Old Mutual and I think that confidence is warranted in these circumstances.

In all these circumstances, we feel that, despite our original misgivings, and also, particularly, because in other countries there are similar restrictions—for instance, there is a mutual insurer in Australia where the total is limited to 200 votes; so that there are precedents for this—the small policy-holder is adequately safeguarded. Therefore we will support that provision of the Bill as well.

So we believe that these amendments are appropriate. It is a question of a company seeking to make changes which its own members and its own board approve of and therefore we will support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are just as concerned about the interests of the small investor and the interests of the small policy holder in an organization such as the one we are discussing at present. The fact of the matter is that the system which is at this stage being proposed by the board of directors, and which has been approved by the members, is a very good parallel to the general practice in commerce. The small investor who only has a few shares in a company, however, does not even enjoy the same measure of protection as a small policy holder will enjoy in this case, because a maximum of 100 votes is being allocated to a member of the Society. We are satisfied that this amending Bill is indeed going to serve the best interests of all the members of this particular organization and, as the hon. member for Paarl also stated, only 4% of the members will at this stage have the maximum number of votes.

It is extremely important that we should take cognizance of the fact that this Society has, since its establishment in 1845, been managed in an extremely conservative manner. If one thinks of how the insurance industry has changed since, and that the last change in membership and in the scale of votes took place in 1888, one may accept with certainty that the board of directors will not propose amendments to the constitution and the other regulations of this Society very readily. This specific scale is a fair reflection of the members’ interests, and the other clauses of this amending Bill indicate that there is only one desire, viz. to act in the best interests of members, to bring the activities of this Society into line with general practice in the insurance industry and related industries, and to bring the Society into line with sound management principles.

It is important that the best interests of the members should also be served in this way, because a Society such as this plays an extremely important part in a country which advocates a free enterprise system. It solves many problems with which a Government would otherwise have been saddled, such as the problem of making provision for the aged and taking care of the people who remain behind when a person dies. We on this side of the House are grateful to be able to make a contribution towards streamlining the activities of this Society in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill. I think the hon. member for Florida is quite right when he says that Old Mutual is a company which has played a very important role in the financial affairs of the country, and in a very conservative manner and on a very conservative basis. I think that one is therefore entitled to expect that when legislation concerning Old Mutual is introduced, it should be legislation on an equally conservative basis and not something which is going to shake the foundations of this institution.

We are quite happy that this Bill is a measure which will protect the interests of all policy-holders. I think the changes are such that we are entirely prepared to accept them, coming as they do from the group of directors in whom we have a great deal of trust and who have, in the past, acted in a conservative manner in taking care of the interests both of the people and of the shareholders.

What has impressed me is the new system which has been introduced. The raising of the maximum number of votes per member from three to a hundred represents a considerable change. To those of us who are involved in attempts to change a constitution, and to find a new way of voting which is going to protect the rights of all the people belonging to the minority groups in our country, this is a bold innovation. It is a bold move to raise the maximum from three votes to 100 votes.

Three to one.

There are three men and one hundred votes, not one man, one vote.

I understand that. I am not advocating a one man, one vote system in that organization. I can assure the hon. member that that is not the case.

We thought you had changed your policy.

I think the decision to change it in this way is a bold one. We do support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to thank the hon. members for Yeoville, Mooi River and Florida for their support for this Bill.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the problem that people do not always know what they are buying, but we shall always have to deal with that problem. Some people sign contracts while they do not know what they are signing. Unfortunately one cannot protect such a person from himself.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In the drafting of the Aviation Act, No. 74 of 1962, which provides, inter alia, for the construction and maintenance of aerodromes, an attempt was made to eliminate every possible eventuality which could frustrate the proper functioning of an airport. Proof of this is section 22, the enabling provision for making regulations. Provision is even made for the disposal of lost property and in respect of the parking of vehicles. However, it was never foreseen that people would park vehicles at an airport and then vanish without trace. In many cases these are dishonest hire-purchase buyers who leave unpaid-for vehicles at the airport and go abroad or elsewhere. Sometimes it is a stolen vehicle that is parked at the airport or “abandoned” after it has served its purpose. Under such circumstances, abandoned vehicles are encountered at airports. The situation has now reached such proportions that at the Jan Smuts Airport alone, there are no fewer than 36 abandoned vehicles, some of which have already been there for more than four years. The unpaid parking fees amount to thousands of rands a year. Apart from that, it has to be taken into consideration that 80% of all parking fees accrue to the State by virtue of concessionary agreements with the various undertakings which provide parking facilities. At present there are 11 abandoned vehicles at the Louis Botha Airport, and one at the D. F. Malan Airport.

The problem now confronting the department is that in the case of vehicles there are legal obstacles that prevent their disposal out of hand and the utilization of the proceeds to defray the unpaid parking fees, in spite of the fact that the vehicles have in fact been unlawfully parked. The obstacles derive from the fact that, on the one hand, the enabling provision of the Act does not make adequate provision for the making of suitable regulations, and on the other hand, the relevant rules of common law cannot be applied either. This is a legal aspect which was thoroughly investigated by the Government law advisers. The amending Bill has been drafted in such a way that it will meet all the legal requirements for the promulgation of regulations whereby persons may be designated to decide whether any unlawfully parked vehicle has been abandoned. Furthermore, there are the steps that may be taken to trace any person entitled to such vehicle, the arrangements regarding removal and sale, and the disposal of the proceeds of the sale of such vehicles, etc. In this way an equitable arrangement can be made to solve the problem and also to enable airport managements to utilize valuable space, that is being taken up by deteriorating vehicles, for the purposes for which the land has actually been made available, and which in some instances had to be purchased at great expense.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister has said, this Bill enables him to draw up regulations to deal with motor-cars and other vehicles that have been abandoned at airports. It means that the hon. the Minister will be able to go into the second-hand car business, but whether anyone will buy those cars from the hon. the Minister is, of course, another matter. At one stage I had reservations about giving the hon. the Minister this onerous responsibility. This whole second-hand car business is obviously an onerous job, but when I looked at the new salary scales I thought that if the hon. the Minister is being paid so much, this is the sort of thing we ought to give the hon. the Minister to do. On that basis I am quite prepared to support the Bill.

Are you getting a commission on the sale of the cars?

Mr. Speaker, the NRP supports the Second Reading of the Bill. [Interjections.] We who use aircraft a lot have often seen these abandoned cars in the parking lots at airports. I for one have often wondered to whom they belonged and why the cars are allowed to stay there. So I think this is a reasonable request on the part of the hon. the Minister. I would just like to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that knowing this hon. Minister I am sure he will not go into the motor-car business but will hand this responsibility over to someone else.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister must definitely be congratulated on this Aviation Amendment Bill. In this way the hon. the Minister is now being empowered to make the regulations necessary to solve this problem.

I also wish to thank the hon. Opposition parties for their support for this Bill. As a matter of interest, I just wish to point out that at present the total annual loss in parking fees in respect of 29 abandoned vehicles at three airports amounts to the not inconsiderable amount of R19 126.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their support for this Bill. I just wish to add that I think hon. members on the opposite side are themselves in a very friendly mood, naturally because they have great expectations with regard to their own positions.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill provides for the construction of a guaranteed single railway line between Chempet and Atlantis.

Consequent upon the development of Atlantis as a growth point for Coloured labour and with a view to stimulating industrial growth in that area, thereby providing adequate work opportunities for the population which could eventually total some 460 000 people, the construction of a railway line to Atlantis is regarded as a very high priority.

The provision of a railway link was initially envisaged on the basis of a private siding from Chempet to Atlantis. Unfortunately, the programming of the line had to be postponed owing to the anticipated growth at Atlantis not having progressed according to expectation, but mindful of the importance of the Atlantis area in the development strategy of the Western Cape, and the present settlement tempo, it has been decided, at the instance of the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy, to proceed with the project as a matter of urgency, with the Railways taking the initiative.

The Railways and Harbours Board has examined the proposal and has recommended the construction of a railway line between Chempet and Atlantis. Full details of the proposed line are furnished in the report of the board which has already been tabled.

It will take approximately three years to construct the line, the total cost of which is estimated at some R21 million. The hon. the Minister of Finance has agreed that the funds for the construction and equipping of the railway line will be appropriated additional to the Railway Administration’s normal loan fund requirements. The Railways will proceed with the construction of the line as soon as parliamentary sanction has been obtained for the project. It is expected that approximately R7,2 million will be spent on the scheme during the 1980-’81 financial year.

*The usual terms of guarantee were included in a warranty agreement concluded between the S.A. Railways and the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy. The agreement extends over a period of 15 years, and in terms thereof the capital expenditure on the line, including interest, will be redeemed within the period of guarantee, while the guarantor during this period will safeguard the Railways against operating losses as well.

As hon. members probably noticed from the report of the Railways and Harbours Board, we have in this case deviated from the existing practice according to which a special extra charge is levied on all outgoing traffic transported on a guaranteed railway line, in the sense that no such extra charge will be levied on traffic between Atlantis and Chempet in the initial stages in order to help defray losses. Our object in doing this is to accommodate the large variety of large and small undertakings that will probably offer traffic for transportation over the line, so that, from a competition point of view, they will not be worse off than similar undertakings elsewhere. The guarantors of the Kensington-Chempet guaranteed railway line had no objections to the extension of the railway line from Chempet to Atlantis, but they insisted that the special extra charge applicable to their parts of the railway line should also be levied on traffic coming down from Atlantis as well. I think it is a reasonable request.

Hon. members have probably noticed that no short-term provision is made for transporting passengers over the railway line. The reasons are obvious. The primary object of the railway line is to stimulate industrial growth at Atlantis, causing a labour force to be established in the immediate environment, and the provision of facilities for passengers could frustrate the actual purpose of the railway line and hamper the broad development strategy envisaged for the Western Cape. I may mention also that the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy, at whose instance the railway line is being built and who undertook to defray any operating losses, has requested that the minimum facilities be initially provided in order to keep operating losses at the lowest possible level.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches welcome this Bill. Indeed, the issue of a railway line to Atlantis has been raised from these benches year after year since 1974. So we have no objection in principle to it. We raised certain issues relating to this, in particular the question of passengers, during the debates on the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill, but the hon. the Minister said we could deal with them more extensively at this stage.

There are some issues which I want to raise at this stage. I am not entirely satisfied with the brief explanation which the hon. the Minister has given in respect of the passenger situation. Basically it appears from his statement and from the report of the Railways and Harbours Board that the prime purpose is to convey goods to and from the growing industrial area at Atlantis. I do not think that one can divorce that purpose from all the preceding investigations which indicated that the early introduction of a railway service was a necessity. In this connection I refer to the original planning by the Department of Planning and the planning which was undertaken by various West Coast committees, inter alia, the Dassenberg committee and the committee for the development of Atlantis.

I pointed out, and I do so again, that if Dassenberg, now Atlantis, had followed the pattern which it should have followed in its development, it should have had at this stage some 50 000 inhabitants. There is a time lag of something approaching five years in the development of Atlantis. However, at any stage in the development it is going to be necessary to transport people to and from Atlantis. As development takes place over the next 15 years, it is envisaged that local industry will provide jobs for something approaching 28% of the people living there; 10% of the people will be working outside Atlantis, but not in the Cape metropolitan area; and 58,8% or roughly 59% of the anticipated population of Atlantis will be employed in the Cape metropolitan area. Every projection which has been made points to the fact that road traffic is not adequate to accommodate the passengers who will have to be taken to and from Cape Town. I gave the figures at the time of the Railways and Harbours Budget debates and I am not going to repeat them.

We are distressed, not only because passenger services are not being provided for at this stage, but also because there seems to be no forward planning in respect of a passenger service. Even if a case can be made out for saying that right at the moment there should not be a passenger service, we want to know whether the line is to be constructed in such a way, and whether everything is being taken into account to ensure, that certainly within five years when a passenger service becomes a necessity, it can be provided.

The position is aggravated by the fact that the Department of Planning has decided that within the Cape metropolitan area no more land, other than the already limited area in terms of group areas, will be made available for Coloured residential purposes. The result of this is that many people who normally find employment in Cape Town will, as far as their housing is concerned, be squeezed out of Cape Town into the Atlantis area and will have to return to Cape Town or the metropolitan area to take up employment. I want to know whether it was a conscious decision only to provide goods services or whether the requirement of passenger services was also investigated and merely turned down. Was it a policy decision not to have passenger services but to confine it to goods services? Secondly, is there any provision made in the planning for a relatively easy conversion to passenger services when this is required? Thirdly, is there provision made for a fairly easy conversion to electrification? Clearly, if there are going to be passenger services, electrification becomes not only desirable but a necessity. It is going to be odd to find that passing Koeberg neuclear power-station, on which we are spending something like R2 billion, we are going to have a non-electrified railway line. That seems to me to be a contradiction as far as the Railways and this power-station are concerned.

Fourthly, part of the problem of providing passenger services has been identified as the bottleneck which exists in bringing passenger services from the west coast through Milnerton and the densely populated area to link up with the Kensington-Bellville line. Once again, the hon. the Minister is familiar with the reports and in each instance it is indicated that this is going to be a problem that will require a partial reconstruction of the line between Kensington and Cape Town. It would also involve the conversion of Culemborg into a passenger railway station rather than just a goods station.

We believe that, with the rapid growth of the Coloured population and in view of topographical factors and the fact that no more land is available for Coloured development, the growth of Atlantis as a dormitory suburb cannot be ignored. It cannot be seen merely as a satellite town providing full employment. It will have to be seen largely as a dormitory suburb of Cape Town. For these reasons we believe that the concept of a passenger line—provisions for planning it and for the conversion of the present line, even if not the actual establishment of that line—is a necessity at this stage.

The second point I want to raise concerns the question of costs and financing. The gross cost is stated to be approximately R21 million. Is this an estimate which includes provision for escalation over the next three years, or is this based on an escalation of cost at the time when the cost estimate was prepared? The costs are apparently not going to be guaranteed by an outside body or a private firm as is the case in respect of the Chempet line, but it is going to be guaranteed by another department. At the time of the report it was going to be guaranteed by the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy. As that department is going to cease to exist as a separate entity, is it going to fall under the Prime Minister’s Division of Planning or is it going to fall under the new Department of Energy which is controlled by another Minister?

It is customary, when a line is guaranteed, to introduce as a schedule to the Bill the terms of the guarantee. In each of the other cases one has thus had a clear indication of the terms of the guarantee involved. In this case it is indicated that, because it is an inter-governmental guarantee, it is not necessary to introduce the information in the Bill. Nevertheless I think we as members of Parliament, having to approve the Bill and vote the money, are entitled to know more about the nature of the guarantee than the hon. the Minister has given us.

The final point I want to raise is the question of this being an extension of the line from Kensington to Chempet, on which Fisons do guarantee the loss. I see from the report that last year there was a loss of something like R95 000 on that particular line. Since the traffic emanating from Atlantis is going to add to the load on this line and up till now the total loss was, by agreement, to be borne by the company Fedmis, is some of the loss now also going to be borne by people who dispatch goods from further along the line?

We look forward to hearing replies to these questions. That will determine our attitude towards the further stages of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have before me a brochure issued last week by the department of planning which is of tremendous importance for the future development of the Western Cape. It is noteworthy that on the cover of the brochure a map appears indicating the line—the development arm— which runs from the Cape metropolitan area along the West Coast through Atlantis, and which will in later years be extended to the Vredenburg-Saldanha area. It shows explicitly the future growth pattern for the Western Cape. The Railway line that is planned here, in reality fits in beautifully with what is indicated on the map on the cover of the brochure, viz. a link between the growth point in the vicinity of Atlantis with the Cape metropolitan area.

I could deliver a long speech to prove that the Atlantis project is in fact already a resounding success. The government is doing creative work, albeit artificial, in this specific region. Approximately 43 industrialists are already established in Atlantis. As far as the infrastructure is concerned, R9 million has already been invested, R35,6 million has been invested in housing, R28 million was invested by private initiative and a new diesel project costing R400 million is now being established there. The growth point in this specific area has therefore already become a reality, and therefore it is logical that this growth point should be linked with the Cape metropolitan areas.

I am not a member of the PFP. I think that the PFP is today the most evil party that could ever exist. All the same, I do want to admit that I tend to agree, against my will, with the arguments put forward just now by the hon. member for Sea Point, not because I think that the PFP is such a wonderful a party, but because I know this part of the world and because it falls within my constituency. I want to join the hon. member for Sea Point in telling the hon. Minister that we shall have to give consideration fairly soon to making this line a passenger line. The fact is that at the moment 1 500 workers are already being transported by bus from Atlantis to the Cape metropolitan area. A great deal of growth is taking place in the vicinity of Melkbosstrand. It has already been pointed out that the people from the nuclear power station are being accommodated there, and the people from the new project at Atlantis are also accommodated in this specific area. If there is an area on the West Coast where the growth momentum is really strong and widespread, it is in the region of Table View and Milnerton. In this regard the hon. member for Sea Point is quite correct and I think we shall have to give attention as soon as possible to making this line one on which passengers, too, may be transported.

I want to conclude by saying that the legislation concerns this development axis of the future, and I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for the creative work that is being carried out there.

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member for Moorreesburg supporting this proposal …

And punting his constituency.

… and, as the hon. member for Mooi River says, punting his constituency. I want to suggest to the hon. member that we must not forget the extent to which Atlantis is going to develop in the future. We are talking about a city of 460 000 people. I wish to add that the hon. member for Moorreesburg is very fortunate that the S.A. Railways have decided to build the railway line as it is indicated on the map. It is going to be built quite a way inland and not on the coast. I also represent a coastal constituency, and I regret to say that on the coast of my constituency the coastline has been polluted by virtue of the railway line running within a matter of a few hundred metres from the beach.

That is not our fault. Who built the line?

I want to tell the hon. member for Moorreesburg that I can foresee the day that this railway line is going to be extended right through, possibly to Saldanha. I think this is one of the main reasons why we in these benches are going to support this. It is because we can foresee a large amount of development in the Western Cape. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that there are some hon. members here, including the hon. member for Moorreesburg, who have had an opportunity to look into problems on the west coast in regard to the fishing industry. We know that there is a great need for jobs, especially among the Coloured community, the people who are living in that particular area, and therefore I think it is extremely important that the Atlantis project really gets off the ground as fast as possible. I think that railway transport in an industrial area is extremely important.

Having said that, let me add that I agree with what the hon. member for Sea Point said about planning for passenger traffic. However, on looking at the map, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that the line is merely shown as going into a goods yard, as it were, and when one looks at the map one finds that the residential area of Wesfleur is quite a way inland. It is a pity that provision is not being made in their plans—as far as we can see—at this early stage, since the Division of Physical Planning is looking into the development of a city of 480 000, for projecting the line way into the residential area to bring commuter passengers from the residential area into the industrial area, and possibly through there on the main line straight to Cape Town. The point I am trying to make is that the Planning Department of the Railways, along with the department that is planning the whole Atlantis area, must get together now to lay aside the necessary rights of way for any future railway line because, after all, at the present time there is no large-scale development of any sort in this area.

Having said that, there are two questions I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. Firstly, I regret to say that I did not see anything in the board’s report, or in any other report we have, in regard to the amount of traffic that is expected on this railway line. No tonnages have been estimated, and we do not know at all what the expected turnover or revenue on this line are going to be. I would have thought that when the hon. the Minister comes to this House …

It is a line which is guaranteed for the development of the area.

I appreciate that, but it is another Government department which is guaranteeing it. One would like to know what the profit and loss account on this line is going to be. This might indicate that the other department will really have to get on with the development of Atlantis if it is to ensure that this line is not going to run at a loss, because one way or the other, someone is going to have to pay for it.

It is going to run at a loss.

Well, that is interesting. Since the hon. the Minister now says that it is going to run at a loss, I sincerely hope that he and his colleague in the Cabinet will now make sure that the development of Atlantis really gets off the ground.

The other matter I wish to raise is the question of electrification of the line which the hon. member for Sea Point has already referred to. With the development of Atlantis into a city of 480 000, and with all the projected industrial development there, I wonder whether Koeberg, with its power, is going to be sufficient. Possibly it will mean having even more power stations in the Western Cape in the future. Maybe the reason why the hon. the Minister is planning for diesel at this stage is because of the lack of an adequate source of electrical energy. Perhaps he could enlighten us.

Having said that, let me conclude by stating that we in these benches shall support the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support for the legislation. The reason why we are anxious to have the legislation approved, is that we cannot commence with the work until we have received parliamentary approval for the legislation itself. That concerns the point raised by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. The development of Atlantis itself is also being hindered to a large extent by the fact that there is no rail link. This is just to explain why we are in such a hurry. Basically the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Moorreesburg asked the very same question, viz. why provision is not being made for passengers. The legislation in no way prohibits the transportation of passengers on this specific line. This is a line that is being guaranteed by the Division of Physical Planning, and this division has requested that in the initial stages we should keep the cost as low as possible, for the very reason that this division is responsible for guaranteeing the losses on this line.

I need not tell hon. members that passenger services are operated at a heavy working loss. Whereas a specific department is now involved, hon. members will understand that that department would clearly wish to keep its obligations in terms of the guarantee as low as possible, and that, moreover, is the correct thing to do. I just wish to say that the reasons why we cannot transport passengers at this stage are in fact due to the objection by the Secretary for Environmental Planning and Energy, as explained in the department’s minute of 6 March 1979, to the effect that the proposal for the construction of the envisaged railway line to Atlantis was submitted for consideration to the interdepartmental committee for the transportation of non-Whites during a meeting of the committee on 28 November 1978, whereas it was a question of a goods line. Besides that, at this meeting to which I have referred, the Secretary for Community Development also indicated that no consideration at all should be given to a transport service for passengers between Atlantis and Cape Town, because then Atlantis would become a dormitory town, something that should be avoided at all costs. In the first instance, the whole concept is that a new community should be established there, a community where people can live, relax and work, and where educational facilities can be built for them. This does not exclude the fact that passenger services could be introduced, but I think it would be totally counterproductive to grant the job opportunities that could arise as a result of the existing development and future development, to people living in the Peninsula, while the inhabitants of Atlantis itself cannot get preference. I think that would be wrong. If hon. members were now to consider the figures from the angle of economical considerations, they would see how many passengers might need transport. The figure for 1979 was 1 200. For 1980 it is being estimated at 1 500. The hon. member for Moorreesburg also gave this figure. For 1981 it is estimated at 1 900. When we look at the projection for 1985, we see that the figure is 4 700, and by the year 2000 this figure will be 35 000. These are conservative estimates. The optimistic estimate is 70 000. The point I wish to make, is that advance estimates have already been made with a view to establishing the stage at which it might be possible to undertake passenger services.

But that does not include Melkbosstrand and Bloubergstrand.

No, not in this particular regard. The second point I wish to raise, is that it does not exclude the extension of the railway line to Saldanha either. In fact, this is a definite possibility. But this should once again be determined by economic factors, and we shall take them into account. Although this railway line is being provided primarily to carry goods traffic between Atlantis and Cape Town, it is nevertheless our opinion that sooner or later, as a result of the fuel crisis, representations will be received from specific bodies for the transporting of commuters to and from the industrial area at Atlantis, as well as to and from residential areas such as Table View, Montague Gardens and Bloubergstrand, and possibly to the industrial area at Chempet as well. In view of this the Cape Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board was requested to give its opinion in this specific regard. Depending on their advice, we shall be able to adjust the decisions and alter them if it becomes necessary. I hope I have satisfied hon. members in this regard. The hon. member asked whether the line could be converted to electric power. I just want to furnish an explanation in this regard. This line now links up with the existing line on which diesel traction is being used. This is the first point. The second point is that the capital investment for electrical power is the decisive factor, in other words, whether it can be undertaken economically. It is envisaged that during the initial stage, one train per day will be adequate to carry the goods traffic. Electrification will only really become economical when more than 15 trains per day are running. It is therefore not possible to electrify the line, but that depends on the volume of traffic carried by the line. It can be indicated.

†The other question the hon. member for Sea Point asked me was the question whether the estimate of R21 million was based on existing costs or whether escalation had been included. The answer to that is that it includes the projected escalation cost over the period of construction of the line.

*The reason why the report does not specify the conditions of the guarantee, is that it is a guarantee given by one State department to another. As I have already indicated, the guarantee in respect of the line is contained in a minute sent by one department to the other. I shall give the hon. member for Sea Point a copy for his information.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti asked me to request the planning division of the Railways as well as the Department of Environmental Planning to investigate the extension of the line, at least within the residential area. I shall issue an instruction to this effect and decide whether there are any practical advantages involved.

[Inaudible.]

Quite correct. I understand.

†The last question the hon. member for Sea Point asked me was which department would eventually guarantee it. It will be the Department of the Prime Minister that will be the guarantor in respect of the line.

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

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are reasonably satisfied that, although the line has had a modest beginning in terms of planning, the department is adopting an open-ended approach. It can possibly be extended to Saldanha and adapted to accommodate passenger as well as being electrified. We hope that in the design of the line there is nothing that will make it more difficult to adapt it for these purposes.

There is only one thing which seems to be unsatisfactory in regard to this matter. It relates to the point which was raised earlier on by me and the hon. member for Moorreesburg, and that is the question whether the location of the line lends itself to the possibility of trains picking up passengers in the various townships along the line. I think the line has been designed primarily to convey traffic to Atlantis while perhaps insufficient attention has been given to the townships nearer Cape Town where passengers could be picked up.

I should like to conclude by raising one final point. The very nature of the emphasis placed on this line has been to develop a growth area primarily for Coloured people. I just wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us that in this case there will be absolutely no discrimination against Coloured people working on this line in the employ of the Railways. I want to know whether they will be able to become station masters, goods superintendents, diesel locomotive drivers, etc. I believe the hon. the Minister, if he wants our support for the Third Reading of this Bill, should now tell us that in respect of this particular line Coloureds are going to be treated as equal to any other railwaymen and are going to be able to occupy any position along this particular line.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to the hon. member’s first question because I think that was a legitimate question. I have indicated that we anticipate demands from the surrounding areas for the transport of passengers, and therefore this matter has been referred to the Metropolitan Advisory Council for Cape Town. Once we receive that report, we shall be in a position to judge whether any alteration to the construction or planning of the line is to be undertaken. Unfortunately I cannot now anticipate the outcome of that investigation.

As far as his question concerning the personnel on that line is concerned, I want to tell him that as far as I am concerned, the employment of people in the S.A. Railways is to a very large extent an example to many others. I have indicated—unfortunately the figure has not been published—that more than 20 000 people of colour are doing jobs on the Railways that were previously done by other people. We have already succeeded therein to this extent. This has come about as a result of negotiations with our trade unions and staff associations. That is the basis on which we do this, and consequently I submit that we must rather do the job rather than talk about it. As for me, I am prepared to do the job rather than talk about it.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the implementation of the Medical Schemes Act, 1967, problems have arisen time and again with the determination of fees for services rendered to members and dependants of members of medical schemes. Initially the profession concerned and the schemes had to agree on a tariff of fees and when such agreement could not be achieved, a compensation commission under the chairmanship of a judge was decided upon. Subsequently problems arose in connection with the times at which compensation commissions were to determine such fees, and the Act was amended. After that complaints arose as to the constitution of the commission and the fact that two laymen on the compensation commission i.e. the judge and a member representing medical schemes, had to decide on the inherent value of one service in comparison with another within a profession, and once again the Act was amended to empower the profession concerned to determine these values, while the compensation commission only had to decide on a monetary value. This system, too, had to be modified, primarily because of the fact that a judge could no longer be made available as chairman of a compensation commission and also because the professions concerned were dissatisfied with the fees that had been determined.

After consultation with all the interested organizations it was then decided to entrust this function to the S.A. Medical and Dental Council. In this connection I must, in all honesty, say that there were misgivings. Medical schemes were not very happy because no specific provision was made in the Act that the schemes should have a direct say in the decisions on fees. Members of the council expressed misgivings, but could not suggest any alternative method and, with three dissenting votes, agreed to this function being entrusted to the council. The medical schemes would be reassured as far as their misgivings were concerned by pointing out that the council would be competent to appoint any person, including a person representing medical schemes, on the tariffs committee of the council. It was further envisaged that the council could appoint a body such as the Human Sciences Research Council or a Bureau for Economic Research at one of the universities to institute an inquiry and to provide the council with factual information.

However, the Minister of Health has no power in this matter.

In this spirit the 1978 Act was amended and the council put the mechanism for determining the fees into operation.

The medical schemes were not involved in the tariff committees of the council.

In March 1979 the schemes threatened the council with an interdict. According to the schemes the tariffs committee of the council wanted to recommend, an interim adjustment of the fees to the council at that stage, and the schemes were of the opinion that no jurisdiction for such an action existed. The tariffs committee thereupon resolved to hear representations from interested groups, i.e. the schemes and the professions, and to determine fees in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

No use was made of a body such as the Human Sciences Research Council or a Bureau for Economic Research at a university to provide the council with information. In this connection I must point out that the Medical Association of South Africa submitted evidence by an economist to the tariffs committee. The council itself appointed a statistician to be of assistance with the processing of statistical data.

Prior to the council meeting in August 1979, at which the recommendations of tariff committees were to be considered, I read in Press reports of the so-called 52,2% increase in tariffs. I addressed a verbal request through the president of the council to the effect that the council should, after its resolution, postpone the confirmation of such resolution to the October meeting to afford me an opportunity to address the council and the associations. This request was not complied with, in spite of the fact that the matter was once again raised at a meeting of the council. The council decided to accept the recommendations of tariff committees and a public reaction, which hon. members know about, followed.

I made an appeal in public to the council to reconsider the matter. In this connection I adopted the only legal alternative by requesting the president of the council in writing, in terms of section 8(2) of the Act, to convene a special meeting of the council with the purpose of reconsidering the fees which had been determined by the council, and to determine new fees.