Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As is customary, this Bill is an omnibus measure. This year the main aim is to amend six Pensions Acts. Consequently this affects a variety of subjects that could best be debated in the Committee Stage. I say the Committee Stage because I believe that I shall have the support of both sides of the House for this Second Reading.

I just wish to elucidate a few of the provisions for the convenience of hon. members.

All the pension funds under my control, except the Associated Institutions Pension Fund, provide that a member who is temporarily seconded by his employer for service to another employer, may retain his membership. The Associated Institutions Pension Fund is the only exception. I could find no good reason for this, and consequently the regulations of this pension fund ought to be brought into fine with the regulations of the other pension funds. Clause 1 makes provision for this.

It is neither right nor fair that a person with a sufficient number of years of service as an MPC to qualify for a pension and a gratuity, has to forfeit that right if he should retire shortly after his election as MP or if, in the event of his death, his widow must be left unprovided for. Such instances have occurred and all of them had to be rectified by special petition. The amendment that is now being proposed in terms of clause 2, would obviate a repetition of this.

In future, a clear distinction will be drawn between the qualifying service and the pensionable service of a Member of Parliament. Qualifying service will determine who is entitled to a pension, whereas pensionable service will determine the amount of the pension. In determining a person’s qualifying service, full recognition will be given to provincial service, but in determining pensionable service, the 2:1 principle remains unchanged.

There are two matters that arise from the Budget Speech and which now have to be regulated by law. The first is the equalization of consolidated military pensions with the so-called new pensions. The only way in which this can be done effectively is to abolish consolidated pensions and to delete all references to them in the Act. This is done in clauses 4 to 14.

In the second place, provision is being made in clause 18 for the proposed Civil Pensions Stabilization Account, which was also announced in the Budget Speech.

Finally, I just wish to say a few words with regard to clause 22. In terms of this clause, a new principle is being introduced into our pension legislation, namely that in the payment or distribution of a gratuity payable on the death of a member of a pension fund or pension scheme, the wishes of such a person shall be taken into account. This provision only relates to the gratuity, and the widow’s pension is not affected in any way.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has introduced an omnibus Bill this morning, which covers many facets of civil pensions payable to members who work for the State and for allied bodies. It involves a matter which is extremely important to every one of them with regard to their future security, and therefore we attach a lot of importance to the Bill. We have no quarrel with the amendments which are being brought about today through this Bill. I have pleasure in advising the hon. the Minister that we shall support the Bill that he has placed before us today and that I can see no reason for introducing any amendments during the Committee Stage.

The hon. the Minister has, however, dealt rather rapidly with very important changes that are taking place as a result of this Bill. I think it is my duty just to highlight some of them and to mention some of the matters we are dealing with.

In so far as the Associated Institutions Pension Fund is concerned, which is referred to in clause 1, we have a situation where, when someone who is covered by this institution is transferred, viz. someone attached to a university, the CSIR and the related SABS, it is a question of who is responsible for payment of his contributions while he is being so transferred. Whilst there has been some lack of clarity in regard to this payment, provision is now made in clause 1 that it can be determined either by the old employer or the new employer as to who will make the contributions, so that the member can continue to enjoy the pension cover he has at that time. This is obviously important, because it affects the person who has to be transferred. It is important for him to know that he retains these pension rights and will still have security when he takes up his new post.

Then we come to clause 2, which has a bearing on members of provincial councils. When a member of a provincial council who fully qualifies for a pension, i.e. when he has completed eight years’ service in the provincial council, comes to Parliament and serves here for only two years, he gets no pension at all. The reason for this is that his eight years’ service in the provincial council will count as only four years’ service in this Parliament, which with the two years’ actual service in Parliament will give him a total of six years. Therefore he will actually fall short of the 7½ years he requires to qualify for a pension. The eight years he has served in the provincial council will now enable him to qualify for a parliamentary pension. In other words, if he only serves two years in this Parliament, he will have four plus two years and he will therefore qualify for 6/15th of his pension. I think it is only right that, having served all those years in the provincial council, the member should not lose out. He would have got a pension in the provincial council and so he should not lose his right to a pension because he has elected to come to Parliament. His election to Parliament will then not prejudice him if he does not serve for a sufficient period of time in order to qualify for that pension. So we welcome that provision and will obviously support it.

Clause 3 is a technical clause and concerns a matter which affects the provinces. It will possibly affect those people who work for the Department of Water Affairs who are sent, for example, to university on a course. The question is whether they lose their pension in that case. In terms of this clause they will now be covered. The technical amendment is now being introduced to ensure that, when they are sent to university by the province or the Department of Water Affairs, they do not lose their pension.

We welcome clause 4 most heartily. It relates to military pensions. This has been a sore point for a long time. There are two aspects involved as regards military pensions. Firstly, the old consolidated pension, the pension which was consolidated before 1976, since that year falls under the new legislation so that all those who received the consolidated pension before 1976 will now receive their pensions in terms of the new legislation. I understand that they will not have to apply for their pension and that each case will be reviewed and updated in terms of the new pension scheme introduced in 1976. I must, however, point out that there are people who are going to get less, unfortunately, than they got under the consolidated pension because on that basis they might have been assessed as married persons receiving the benefits of married persons while they may now be single. Therefore, when they are re-assessed, they will be re-assessed as being single and will therefore receive a decreased pension. I think we must warn them as far as that is concerned. However, the most welcome provision concerns the complaints which have been raised for a number of years with regard to the quantum of pension payable to those who served in the First and Second World Wars as opposed to those who served subsequently, for example in the Korean War. We asked for the gap to be closed. Although the hon. the Minister of Finance mentioned in his budget speech that he was going to close the gap over a period of two years, he has in fact done it much faster. In terms of this Bill, once the consolidated provision is scrapped and a new assessment is made, the gap will be closed and everybody will be paid according to the new basis. As I say, that is of course a most welcome provision in favour of all those who have given military service. I think those are people to whom we should give first consideration because of their sacrifices in doing military service for South Africa. That new formula contained in clause 4 will replace the provisions of section 8 of the Act.

Then there are a few amendments like that in clause 15 to cover particular situations, for example the case of a judge who serves outside of the Republic whose pension rights will now not be affected by that.

Regarding the position of judges, we have the situation where their widows will be placed—and I think correctly so—on the same quantum that applies in the case of MPs; in other words, they will receive ¾ of the pension payable. So, all those who become widows after 1 April 1980 will receive three-quarters of the pension that would have been payable to their husbands, as opposed to the present quantum of only a half of that pension. However, those who were widows before that date will continue to receive a half of the pension. Also, where the fixed amount that is paid to judges is increased, the widow will get the benefit of that. She will not in any way be prejudiced in that regard. Clause 17 is purely administrative. It merely introduces new definitions of “Director-General”, “Minister”, etc. It brings section 1 of the General Pensions Act up to date.

Clause 18, which deals with the Civil Pensions Stabilization Account, is a welcome provision. I am not sure whether this is a blessing or only a mixed blessing. It relates to the deduction from the annual bonus. Hon. members will remember that the hon. the Minister of Finance has given each person one month’s extra salary as an annual bonus. In other words, a person now receives thirteen months’ salary annually. Seven per cent of that will go into the Stabilization Account. It is good to have a Stabilization Account which will consist of the 7% contributions out of the annual bonuses paid to all civil pensioners. These contributions will serve to build up this account so that future increases can in fact be funded out of this Stabilization Account. In this way they will derive a benefit from this. As regards their own pockets, however, they will suffer, because they will now receive 7% less than the monthly salary they actually would have received if they did not have to make this 7% contribution. Normally increases in pensions are funded from the general revenue of the whole State, i.e. all the money that has come in from tax and other sources. I think that they are therefore paying themselves in order to have this particular Stabilization Account built up so that they can receive these extra amounts.

Clause 19 deals with the payment of workmen’s compensation to Government employees when they are disabled or injured in any way. In this respect the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has to make the assessments. Apparently, a technical and possibly a legal difficulty has been experienced with regard to the question whether the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is entitled to do that. I think it is the will of the Civil Service that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner should continue to do this. This will therefore remove any doubt that may have existed whether or not the Commissioner should continue to do this. We welcome the fact that the Commissioner will in fact, according to the wish of the Civil Service, continue to make these assessments and make payments for injuries, etc.

I have no comment to offer on the fact that the Secretary for Parliament is to be paid on the same basis as judges.

Now I want to come to a very important new provision, namely clause 22, which deals with gratuities. In terms of this provision a person can now actually direct how that gratuity, as distinct from his pension, should be paid on his demise. His pension will, of course, be paid to his wife and dependants, but he can now direct that his gratuity should be paid to all his children or some of his children. I do not think the department will go so far as to pay it out to his girl friend, if he had one, but I think greater latitude has been allowed in respect of his own family and dependants. I think this will have to be interpreted by the hon. the Minister as time goes by. He will have to give directions to his department in regard to the extent to which a person will be able to direct how his gratuity should be paid out. However, I think it is only fair that the person concerned should be allowed to do so. It may well be that the minors will be working and be well off while the married children may not be so well off. Instead of the minors then receiving the whole amount, as is the case now, the person could now direct that this gratuity should be divided on the basis he lays down. I therefore think that this is a good provision.

The rest of the provisions merely consolidate the existing Act. I think I have now covered the main provisions of this Bill. However, I must draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that, although this Bill covers many aspects concerning the pensions and gratuities payable to State employees, there is an omission in this Bill. There is something I was looking for, but could not find. I was hoping that effect would have been given to representations that have been made by the Public Service Association. I do not know whether they were made to this hon. the Minister or his predecessor. I know they feel very strongly about matters which we all hoped would be contained in the Bill, but unfortunately they do not. They really feel strongly about three aspects. Firstly, they feel strongly about dropping the age limit to 45 to qualify for a pension. They want the 65-year age limit to drop to 60 years and the 60-year limit to drop to 55 years for those who were employed before 1955. I hope the hon. the Minister will give consideration to this. It is the wish of the Public Servants Association and I think this matter should receive his attention. The second point they feel strongly about is the transferability of pensions. If, after they have given many years service, particularly in the professional divisions, they are offered employment in the private sector, it is hard for employees who have given 25 or 30 years service to simply abandon and give up their rights to a pension by accepting a job in the private sector, however attractive it may be. The situation then develops where the bosses, the heads of the departments in which these people are employed, know that they have their employees where they want them and that these employees have to toe the line whether they like it or not. The situation then develops that the employees are unhappy, the bosses know that they cannot move and there is an unhealthy situation which is not in the interests of the Public Service and the country as a whole.

However, if they have the right to transfer their pensions to other pension funds outside the Public Service, a better relationship would develop and there would be more respect between the bosses and their employees. The employees would know that if they are offered a job outside the Public Service, they can accept it. They have been contributing to a pension fund for many years and they know they can transfer their pension whilst still retaining the very best out of the pensions towards which they had contributed for many years. I therefore urge the hon. the Minister seriously to consider the transferability of pensions. I think this recommendation was made by a subcommittee on pensions.

The last point I want to make concerns the grievances of State pensioners. Employees of the State do have grievances as far as pensions are concerned, but there is no proper channel of communication for them to voice their grievances or to discuss them. There is a complicated procedure, but this does not get them anywhere, and I believe that if a grievance commission is set up by the hon. the Minister he will find that the employees will be able to use this vehicle to off-load their problems which they have within the service. If the hon. the Minister would appoint a grievance committee these problems could be settled there, which will make employees feel very happy and it will also make a far better and useful contribution to the affairs of the State.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me this morning to speak after the hon. member for Hillbrow. For a change, he and I have no reason to cross swords, since this measure before the House meets many needs. I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister in particular on the fact that a matter of six, seven or eight laws are being repealed here and certain measures are being reviewed for, through this measure, doors are being opened for the future that will mean a great deal to pensions in general.

I do not wish to react to everything the hon. member for Hillbrow said, but in the course of my speech I shall come back to some of the matters he referred to. I think it is of great importance that in the first place we should consider clause 2, which the hon. the Minister also referred to during his Second Reading speech. This clause deals with the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act, 1971, which is now being amended, and if we reduce it to the crux of the matter, it boils down to two basic matters. In the first place, it is concerned with who is going to qualify for a pension and in the second place, the amount of the pension that is going to be paid. It is very important to know who is going to qualify and what the pension is ultimately going to be. In terms of this measure, the qualifying service determines who is going to receive a pension, and the pensionable service determines the amount of the pension. I think in essence it is going to mean a great deal for members of Parliament in future, since, in a sense, special concessions are being made here. I wish to single out one principle that emerges very prominently here—to me, this falls within the concept of pensions in general—and that is, if a person is entitled to a pension and forfeits it if he dies, the principle is wrong. Since this principle is now being rectified on the basis of the formulae which the department has worked out, it could only be to the benefit of both the contributor to the pension fund and the receiver of the pension.

I now wish to proceed also to make a few observations on the pensions of members of Parliament. I wish to advocate that the pensions of junior members of Parliament, in particular, should also be looked into, in other words, members of Parliament who do not yet qualify for a pension because they have less than 7½ years’ parliamentary service. I wish to plead that provision should be made for these members on a pro rata basis. I wish to make the point that these days it is a full-time profession to be a representative of the people. I do not think that many of us could, over and above our duties as members in the House and in our respective constituencies, still find much time for anything else. I also think that the demands that are going to be made on members of Parliament in the years that lie ahead, are going to be greater and more intense, rather than that their position will become easier. Unless a member of Parliament has additional income or certain extraneous sources of income, the first 7½ years are an extremely risky period, particularly for his wife and children. These members usually have young families whom they have to support, and they have great responsibilities in making provision for their children to be able to go to school or attend a university. Consequently, I wish to plead that such a member should qualify for a pension on a pro rata basis of, for example, 3/15ths or 6/15ths with effect from the day on which he is elected as a member of the House of Assembly. I believe that with the opportunity which this Bill offers and the concessions which the hon. the Minister was, in principle, prepared to make, this extremely important matter could also be met in this way. If this could be done, such an arrangement would attract and make more people available to politics than is the case at present. As I have said, the first few years are a risky period for a member of Parliament, who, in the meantime also has to fight an election or two. It remains risky for him until, after 7½ years’ service, he qualifies for a pension.

What also emerged from what the hon. member for Hillbrow said was that we should, in particular, look into the transferability of pensions. I also think it is essential that legislation should be passed to make pensions transferable. This has already been advocated during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote, and in the course of other debates this year. We expected that a national contributory pension scheme would be introduced and also that other measures would be adopted. Once again I just wish to emphasize the necessity of that very strongly this morning. In the first place it protects the State, and in the second place it is an excellent protective measure for the individual.

In dealing with pension schemes, I wish to add that all schemes should be compelled to make paid-up contributions in respect of pensions transferable. I think it is unjust, unfair and even immoral, when members of pension funds change their occupations, to allow their paid-up contributions to flow back into the respective funds instead of paying them out to such contributors to the fund or having them transferred to another fund. Such practices exist, and I think it is not fair that contributions to pension funds should, in the event of a change of occupation by the member, not be transferable or be returned to the contributor. As I have said, there are such practices and I think they should be stopped summarily. That is, briefly, my view on the transferability of pensions.

I am in complete agreement with what the hon. member for Hillbrow said about clause 2, which has my whole-hearted support. In this connection, I think that clauses 2 to 14 are of immense importance. This is an excellent example of how the pensions of MPCs and MPs are receiving due attention, and this is something that was referred to this morning. The same applies to the regulation of military pensions. I think this should have been done a long time ago. This is not only a bold step, but it is also in keeping with the policy of the department to rationalize its pensions.

I now wish to refer to a few serious problems in connection with pensions and pension funds, problems that have often cropped up and which, consequently, I think should be mentioned here today. I refer, in the first place, to instances where women are discriminated against when they are divorced, widowed, or when they remarry after the death of their husband. Often such a woman discovers, on the death of her husband, that she is in impecunious circumstances because she is not entitled to any of the pension benefits of her former husband. We have to ensure that pension funds, which constitute a major part of the country’s savings today, should not be allowed to discriminate unfairly against these three categories of women. Different funds have different approaches. I should like to refer to three examples. There is a well-known bank which stipulates that if a widow remarries when she is over the age of 50 years, her allowance is not affected. In the case of a certain large business undertaking, the widow’s pension is paid out, regardless of whether she remarries. One could also consider the policy of a certain large mining group. In this case, the widow’s pension payments are stopped if she remarries while under the age of 60 years. I maintain that every citizen is entitled to a pension, but I wish to qualify this by saying that it is also the duty of every citizen to make provision for his old age by contributing to a pension scheme from the moment when he becomes economically active, in other words, when he starts working. It should not merely be an expectation as is often the case today, but indeed a right to which every citizen should be able to lay claim.

I wish to conclude by referring very briefly to clause 22 which, in my view, is an excellent clause, also in the spirit of what I have just been advocating. A member of a pension fund may stipulate, through the Director-General, how and to whom his gratuity shall be paid after his death. This is an aspect which, in former times, depended on the whim of other people. Now, however, a member of a pension fund is being given the right, directly and in a democratic way, to request the Director-General and to stipulate to him to whom and how that gratuity shall be paid.

I wish to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely for this wonderful improvement to our pension legislation. I agree with the provisions of clauses 15 and 16, in which attention is given to the position of judges who render their services under particular circumstances. I believe it is only right that special consideration be given to them, particularly to those who are rendering a great service in the national States and in the independent States, and that this provision is being made for them. Clause 18 is an insertion in the General Pensions Act, 1979. Here, I believe, we also have a breakthrough today, in that a Stabilization Account has been established for civil pensions. I must point out once again that it is both the member of the fund and the State that are going to benefit in the long term. The Director-General may, in terms of this measure, determine from time to time that a certain amount shall be paid to a pension fund in order to help such pension fund to meet its additional obligations.

In my humble opinion, the crux of the inflation problem is being taken into account here. In the past, the department devoted attention from time to time to ways of counteracting inflation as far as pensions were concerned. I think this measure could be used in future as a basic principle by means of which pensions could be protected, and inflation, the great enemy of pensions, could be curbed.

It was a privilege for me to make these few observations here today and also to congratulate the hon. the Minister. I have pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brits and the hon. member for Hillbrow have both dealt in detail with the Bill now before the House. They have done so virtually clause by clause, and both hon. members have raised a number of matters the omission of which from this amending Bill has caused them disappointment. We in these benches have no hesitation in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, which is the usual omnibus Pensions Amendment Bill. It is a Bill which brings about various improvements regarding the various Acts covered and administered by the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions.

The hon. member for Brits referred to the matter of the transferability of contributions to pension schemes. The hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to the same matter. This is a matter which we have discussed in this House on many occasions over the last decade or more. We do hope that, in the not too distant future, this House will be considering some legislation to bring into effect what is undoubtedly an agreed measure in terms of which the transferability of contributions to pension schemes will become a reality, because it has great advantages for the economy as a whole, as well as for the members of the various pension funds.

There are several matters which one can raise in discussing the Bill, but I should like to confine myself mainly to the provisions of the Bill affecting the amendments to the Military Pensions Act and, of course, military pensioners and civil pensioners who will be affected in terms of the proposed Civil Pensions Stabilization Account. Another matter which was also raised, was the question of those who had served in provincial councils and who subsequently transferred their pensionable service under the Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act, and who then, often owing to circumstances beyond their control, found they did not qualify for a pension or their widows did not qualify for a pension as a result of such transfer. We in these benches support the provision before the House. We believe it is an improvement which will indeed obviate the necessity of people petitioning the Select Committee on Pensions to make recommendations in connection with possible monetary relief. There have been cases of considerable hardship in which people who had rendered provincial service had to forego pensions to which they would have been entitled if they had remained in the provincial service. As a result, however, of their coming to Parliament their widows have been penalized as far as their qualifications for pensions’ benefits were concerned.

The position created by the Military Pensions Act of 1976 brought about a long debate in this House. We in these benches believed there were certain shortcomings, the most important one being that relating to the differences in the amounts of pension that had to be paid in terms of consolidated pensions under section 8 of that Act in terms of which persons who had been granted awards before 1 July 1976 were subject to a different rate of compensation from that which applied to those who were granted awards after that date. The position of widows was also affected. Indeed, the hon. member for Durban Point tabled a question to the hon. the Minister of Defence on 14 March 1980, and in his reply to it the Minister indicated that the investigation into military pensions by his department and the Council of Ex-Servicemen had been completed and that a report had been submitted to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. Those recommendations which were made to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions have in the main been incorporated in the Bill which is now before the House, particularly the recommendation relating to the difference in the awards that were granted before the effective date on which the provisions of the Military Pensions Act, and specifically section 4 of that Act, came into operation.

We welcome this step, we believe it is a necessary one and we are indeed pleased to see that it is being brought about earlier than was at first anticipated. This will be of great benefit to a number of those people who were made such an award earlier, who served in the First and Second World Wars in particular, and who have a justifiable grievance in that their benefits were not commensurate with the benefits received by those who were granted awards after that date.

Then there is also the question of widows. Each time there has been an announcement that widows’ pensions or military pensions were to be increased, confusion has existed amongst a number of widows who were not receiving widows’ awards in terms of section 8 of the 1976 Act and who, anticipating an increase in their own pensions, then found that, because their husbands had died after that effective date and they were not receiving a widow’s pension in terms of that particular part of section 8, they would not in fact receive any increase when those increases were announced.

The other aspect which is of importance is the question of the ratio which is applied in respect of the pensions payable to the various groups. In this regard, too, a recommendation was made that instead of a ratio of 4:2:1 applying to Whites, Coloureds and Blacks respectively, it should be adjusted for those who were granted awards after 1 July 1976 to a ratio of 6:4:3.

Those are aspects which were covered when the hon. the Minister of Defence replied to the question which was tabled by the hon. member for Durban Point in regard to improvements for military pensions. The one matter that does not appear to be provided for in the amending legislation now before us is the question of the pensions awarded to dependent parents. Such pensions should not be restricted to the degree of dependency of those parents at the time of death of the member, but provision should be made for possible future dependency as was provided for in the old War Pensions Act which was superseded by the Military Pensions Act of 1976. That aspect is important, particularly in times of inflation. The hon. member for Brits referred to the ravages of inflation as far as pensions are concerned, and we know that there are virtually no pension schemes that can keep pace with the rate of inflation, particularly as in this country it is today running at nearly 14%. However, the question of possible future dependency is another aspect which does not appear to have been incorporated into this legislation.

The other recommendation concerned the daily allowance during a period of hospitalization. This is a matter for which, of course, provision could not be made in this Bill, but in fact it is a matter which the Minister could rectify by regulation. The improvement of the position of those who received awards for service in the First and Second World Wars in terms of the Military Pensions Act is welcomed. However, there is one particular aspect which I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister, viz. that with the passing of this legislation, a situation will be created where those persons, particularly those who served in the Second World War, who are now reaching the age of 60 years and will therefore be entitled to claim a war veteran’s pension as such, could find that as a result of the improvements which are to be brought about with the passing of this Bill they will receive an increase in their military pensions which could disqualify them from receiving war veteran’s pensions. I do urge the hon. the Minister to take this into account and to ascertain whether it is not possible for the awards that are granted in terms of the Military Pensions Act not be taken into account as income for the purposes of the means test when a person is applying for a war veteran’s pension in terms of the Social Pensions Act. As I say, there will be an increasing number of people, to whom this could apply, reaching the age of 60, and if one looks at the tables in the latest report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, one sees that this increased demand is already apparent. The position will now change, however. Relaxation of the means test is coming into operation on 1 October 1980, and the ceiling will be R116 per month for a single person and R232 per month for a married person. Consequently, those who have been granted awards for injuries sustained as a result of their war service will in fact be penalized to the extent that they will not be able to qualify for a war veteran’s pension as such because of the fact that the awards in terms of this Bill could preclude them from obtaining such a war veteran’s pension. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to give very careful and serious consideration to not taking into account the military pension awards that are made to persons in terms of this legislation when they apply for war veteran’s pensions.

Widows will now also be dealt with on the same basis. Where a widow applies for an old age pension and she is also receiving a widow’s pension in terms of the Military Pensions Act, she too could be precluded from qualifying for an old-age pension purely on the basis of the amount of the military pension she receives. She could in fact be disqualified even if she has no assets or investments at all. So I believe that, as far as the widows are concerned, this would be of great assistance to them too. We in these benches believe that, when an award is made in terms of the Military Pensions Act, it is indeed by way of a reward by the State to those persons and by way of compensation for the injuries they received in the course of defending their country. I do hope that, in view of that, special consideration can be given to those awards, as it is given in terms of the Income Tax Act.

Then, I know that the hon. the Minister, on 1 December 1979, did make an announcement that a concession would be granted in terms of which increases in pensions received from one source would be disregarded and would not adversely affect social pensions. This would, in a sense, protect some of those persons who are at present receiving war veteran’s pensions and military pensions in terms of the Military Pensions Act. However, the new applicants will be at a disadvantage if they are receiving awards in terms of the Bill that is now before us.

The other question is the matter of the Civil Pensions Stabilization Account. We know that the hon. the Minister of Finance, when he made his budget speech in this House, did make an announcement in regard to the establishment of the Civil Pensions Stabilization Account. We wholeheartedly support the creation of such an account. We should, however, like to have a little further information in regard to the payments from that Stabilization Account. If one looks at clause 18, one sees that it clearly states that—

That was covered in the budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance. The account will also be credited with—

There is a very wide sphere from which moneys can be credited to that Stabilization Account, but as far as the payments are concerned, the clause merely states that—

I require further information from the hon. the Minister as to the basis on which these amounts will be paid from that account. We know that from time to time the Government has endeavoured to maintain a degree of parity between what is granted to the Railway pensioners and what is granted to civil pensioners. We know that over a number of years Railway pensioners have received a 2% annual birthday bonus in addition to the usual increase—I think it was 10% last year—in Railway pensions. Therefore I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention to pay a birthday bonus, a Christmas bonus, also to those civil pensioners so that they will be aware of what they can expect to receive from this Stabilization Account. The wording of the clause is very wide and obviously it is a matter of policy, as far as the Government is concerned, as to what should be granted. However, there are many civil pensioners who feel aggrieved that when bonuses are granted from time to time, for instance to Railway pensioners and also recently to the social pensioners, they have not received any such bonuses themselves. Many of these civil pensioners are receiving fairly small pensions and would certainly welcome any step in this direction to help them in trying to meet escalating costs of living which all of us are experiencing.

So, with these words, we on these benches see this Bill as a general improvement in the administrative field as well as a step forward, in particular in regard to the military and civil pensioners. Therefore we in these benches support the Second Reading of this Bill wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umbilo has, as usual, made a very thorough study of the Bill and made certain very interesting requests to the hon. the Minister, requests with which we agree wholeheartedly. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will give them his proper attention, as he usually does.

It is unnecessary for me to take up much of the time of the House, nor do I intend to do so. I am rising in the first place, on behalf of myself and my party, to pledge our support to this Bill and I do so with great pleasure. In fact, it would not be inappropriate if I were to say that I am delighted to do so. The hon. the Minister will know what I am talking about when I say that. I wish to thank him for his personal share in this Bill.

We have found that since the appointment of the hon. the Minister to this portfolio he has in all respects shown great sympathy for the cause of the pensioners. I think that this year, in particular, we have made progress. We have talked about it a good deal and I think if we look back, we can say with great satisfaction that serious attention is being devoted to the lot of the pensioners. There is nothing that gives pensioners so much peace of mind as the knowledge that provision is being made for them, and particularly for their dependants after their death. It is for this reason that I am rising to state on behalf of my party that we are supporting this legislation, and on behalf of the thousands of people, perhaps, who are going to benefit by this Bill, we wish to express thanks and appreciation to the hon. the Minister for his personal share in it.

Mr. Speaker, I propose to be very brief. The main purpose for my rising is to express appreciation on behalf of the veterans of two World Wars for what has been done for them in terms of this piece of legislation. I think it is appreciated by all of us who are connected with people from the Second World War, and of course also from the First World War. The announcement was initially made in the budget and is presently in legislation. Obviously, we appreciate and welcome it.

There are however a couple of things that I would like to raise relating purely to the military pensions, and I ask the hon. the Minister to bear with me. Firstly, the actual provisions of the proposed section 4A are of course in a very broad form, and it is the spirit behind this legislation, rather than the form, which is going to give effect to the intention. However, I should like him to give an assurance on one aspect on which I think there is a difference of opinion between my hon. colleague and I in regard to its interpretation. My hon. colleague has pointed out that in his view lower pensions might actually be paid out in certain instances, whereas my interpretation is that the proviso makes it clear that nobody is actually going to receive less.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I should like the hon. the Minister to give that assurance so that there will be no misunderstanding that anybody could possibly be prejudiced by that. To me that is quite important.

The second point I should like to make to the hon. the Minister is that I should like to see a general review of the Military Pensions Act. I want to draw attention merely to a few things in relation to this. Section 2(1), for example, draws a distinction between service outside the Republic and service inside the Republic and relates that to the issue of presumptions which arise in regard to disability. I must say to the hon. the Minister that I think that this no longer applies to the kind of military activity which is being conducted at this moment in time by people who are in the future going to receive pensions out of this. I wonder whether, in view of current conditions, we should not rather differentiate between service in war zones generally, in red zones or active service zones, and service which is purely localized when it comes to the presumption which arises in regard to disability. I merely make this point, but I do think it is necessary to look at that.

Secondly, I should like the hon. the Minister to have a look at, for example, the gratuities which are paid in terms of section 5. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that those, too, need some form of revision in view of the current inflation, because quite obviously the amounts of R300 and R600 which were decided upon a matter of some years ago are really no longer applicable in today’s situation. I think that this Bill as a whole perhaps needs to be looked at and brought up to date in respect of a number of matters, but I do not want to burden the House at this late stage of the session with a long analysis of the Act. I have merely drawn attention to these two matters. There is, for example, also the question relating to the different categories and race groups in terms of section 1. I think that needs to be looked at in view of the new policy of the Defence Force that there should be no discrimination. I think all those things need to be looked at. Perhaps a Bill needs to be introduced next year after all these matters have been reviewed by the hon. the Minister.

I just want to refer to one last thing and that is the provision contained in clause 9. It reads—

I think there is some typographical error in this clause. I think it should read—

Perhaps that can be corrected in the Committee Stage. However, that is not the main issue I want to raise with the hon. the Minister in this regard. I have done some calculations to see what the effect is of the change in the formula. There exists some obscurity in this regard and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be so kind as to indicate precisely what the effect of the change to this formula is going to be. I have done a number of alternative calculations and I should like the hon. the Minister to clarify that aspect.

I have dealt purely with military pensions, although I could say a great deal about other things, but I just want to record our appreciation for what has been done for people who have served the country in the past.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to thank hon. members who have spoken on behalf of their respective parties, for the support they have pledged for this legislation. I think it was quite apparent that the discussion of the process of pensions and pension laws is a never-ending one. In the short time I have been occupying this position I have come to realize that this is not something that could simply be dealt with year after year and that one could then sit back and think one has done a fine piece of work. They come back again soon and complain. I think the whole process is a never-ending one, and consequently one has to reconsider the whole situation from time to time.

†I want firstly to discuss in general terms the matters raised by hon. members, matters which they feel need looking into. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke about the need to review the Military Pensions Act. This will be done in the new rationalization process. We will be looking at all the Acts that fall under the jurisdiction of the new department. We will be looking at matters which have become superfluous or need to be improved, and we hope to pay attention to this in the shortest possible time as we get on with the rationalization programme. I think it is a matter which can certainly be looked into.

The hon. member for Hillbrow raised a few very interesting points. He obviously had a very careful look at the Bill. He did make one point which I think has been rectified by the hon. member for Yeoville, a point relating to clause 6. The hon. member will see that the proviso to the proposed new section 4A reads as follows—

This means that he cannot get less, but whether there should be an improvement is something that we can look at in the future.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also mentioned the question of the Associated Pension Fund. This was also mentioned by other hon. members, and I think it is a very important matter to try to get some uniformity, instead of having some cases where there is no transferability and other cases where the rights may be retained. I think this rectifies that. The hon. member also mentioned the will of a deceased as far as the gratuity is concerned. I think it must be made quite clear that a person is now afforded the opportunity to state before his death what should be done with his gratuity. I want also to make it quite clear that the Director-General retains the right either to accept that or to alter it. There are some very difficult problems that do arise sometimes. During my term of office I have already discussed cases with the Director-General and the Deputy Director-General where it was found that a man had been married for a long time, then changed his fancy and married someone else for a short while. This was also mentioned by an hon. member during the discussion of my Vote. In the normal course of events the second wife would be entitled to his pension, but the first wife is left with his children. Obviously in some cases a reasonable amount of his gratuity can be divided by the Director-General according to the needs of that particular family, instead of giving the whole gratuity to the second wife. A part of the gratuity can then be given to the first wife and the children. It is a very difficult problem, but I cannot prescribe by law what a man must do with his possessions. If he elects that the gratuity must go to his second wife, then Bob’s your uncle. He can do what he likes. If he does feel that he wants to leave his whole gratuity to his second wife the Director-General may use his discretion and help his first wife and children by his first marriage. I want to make it clear that it is not as if he was making a will, but he is giving us some indication of how he would like to see the money distributed.

The hon. member also spoke about the recommendations of the Public Service Association on lowering the qualifying age limit from 65 to 60 and from 60 to 55. I will look into this matter, but I can tell the hon. member that it will involve a reasonable amount of money. As soon as one starts lowering the age limit, one is no longer dealing with R1 million or R2 million, but with millions of rand, because the amount obviously carries on for at least another five years of pensionable time. However, it is something that can be looked into.

*The hon. member for Brits also raised the question of transferability. I am able to inform the House that a report in this regard was handed to the hon. the Minister of Finance yesterday. He sent me a copy of it yesterday, but I have not looked at it yet. It is, of course, the prerogative of the hon. the Minister to decide whether or not he will make the contents of the report public. Perhaps he will still do so before the end of the session.

†I think one of the most important first steps in getting more stability into our whole pension situation is the transferability of pension contributions. Various hon. members mentioned the problems encountered when it is not possible for one to transfer one’s pension contributions from one fund to another. It should be borne in mind that we do have cases where people have contributed during their entire working life to a certain pension fund.

There should be greater uniformity as well.

Yes, I agree.

In point No. 3 that the hon. member raised, he referred to a grievances commission. I should like to steer clear of another commission and especially from one that is supposed to deal only with grievances. I come across enough grievances and I do not need a commission to invite them. One must remember that there is recourse to the department, the Director-General and the Advocate-General if problems are experienced. I can assure the hon. member that Public Servants do make use of these avenues when they have grievances. It is not as if their grievances are not attended to. They can even appeal to the Minister if they have major problems. Usually their problems are dealt with departmentally and their problems can also be dealt with by the Director-General or the Advocate-General. I have not seen those particular complaints; they might have been lodged with my predecessor. Nevertheless, I shall ask for the file to have a look at the particular point the hon. member has raised.

*The hon. member for Brits raised a few very interesting points. Like other hon. members—and I thank them for it—the hon. member thanked me for the fact that we are placing the position of MPCs who become MPs, on a firmer foundation. There are widows of MPs who came here after serving on a Provincial Council and who suffered a great deal as a result of the existing provision. I think the proposed provisions will result in MPCs being able to come to Parliament with greater peace of mind. It is no longer applicable to me, otherwise I might not have moved this particular provision, but I do remember that when I came to the House, I had previously had 10 years’ service in the Provincial Council, for which I only obtained recognition for five years. For 30 months, I had to make quite a high additional contribution to the pension fund to ensure that my wife would not be without a pension. I think one derives peace of mind from the fact that one’s service is at least recognized, although we are still retaining the basis of 2:1 after a person has qualified for a pension.

The hon. member also raised the point whether we should not consider allowing all MPs to qualify for a pension on a pro rata basis. This is rather a difficult matter, since it is basic to all pension schemes that there is a qualifying period. There is not a single pension scheme which provides that one qualifies for a pension as soon as one joins a certain organization. Sometimes that qualifying period is 15 years, and sometimes even 20 years. This is particularly the case as far as certain business undertakings are concerned. However, I shall look into this, because this is something that troubles me. It is true that a person who is still comparatively young, can be elected as MP. I believe, however, that when he stands for election, he is thoroughly aware of the fact that there is a definite risk attached to a political career. Not only does it happen that people change their political views, but it also sometimes happens that constituencies disappear completely after a delimitation. When that happens, certain problems arise. I shall look into this, but at this stage I am not able to hold out much hope.

The hon. member also referred to transferability, but I think I have already dealt with that briefly. The hon. member raised a very interesting point as far as discrimination against women such as divorced women and widows are concerned. However, I shall investigate the hon. member’s proposals further since I feel—and the hon. member for Houghton will definitely agree with me—that after all we do not wish to discriminate between men and women when it comes to pensions. Perhaps there is enough discrimination against them in other fields.

That bring me to clause 22, which the hon. member also referred to. This is a clause which I have actually dealt with already. There was also the interesting point which the hon. member made about clause 18 when he said it could help to combat inflation. I thank him for his congratulations. I can assure hon. members that in the time I have been serving in this portfolio, I have found the whole question of pensions extremely interesting, but I have also found it to be a matter of vast magnitude. I hope that now that I am beginning to find my feet, I shall find an opportunity to look into many more matters.

†The hon. member for Umbilo made a very interesting speech with the experience and knowledge he has of these various matters. He gave a full run-down of the history of military pensions, indicating the hardships that are experienced and dealing with various amendments. He mentioned the fact that certain things were not provided for and said that the question of future dependency should be looked into. I shall look into that matter as soon as I have the time to do so.

I think the hon. member did mention the fact that there are certain things that we should look into, e.g. the question of Second World War pensioners of 60 years of age, the problems they have with the pension they get, the new dispensation and the possibility of their retaining their war veteran’s pensions. I think that the question that immediately comes to mind is that of finance. I will certainly have a look at the matter. I am not sure how many thousands of these people there are, or what the burden on the hon. the Minister of Finance will be, but I shall look into the matter.

I think the question of widows is something one could fruitfully look into, possibly when we look at the whole run-up to these pensions in the time that lies ahead.

The hon. member asked what is going to be done with the money in the Stabilization Fund. Perhaps it is not stated fully enough in clause 18 of the Bill on the bottom of page 11. The proposed new section 8A(2) reads—

I think that in the proposed new section 8A(2) one has some indication. The proposed new section 8A(1) indicates where the money will come from and the proposed new section 8A(2) gives some indication of what can be done, and I am quite sure that as time goes on and one can have a further look at what can be done, the money will be very well used for any particular need there may be. This will also prevent Funds from getting into trouble when they have to make out certain payments.

The hon. member mentioned the very interesting point of a birthday bonus for civil pensioners who complain that social pensioners do get a bonus from time to time. I do not know whether this clause will allow for something like that, but it sounds like a very interesting suggestion. I should like to thank him, not only for the suggestion, but also for his support of the Bill.

*I thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central sincerely for his support. He is a man of few words, but his words have great impact. I thank him sincerely.

†I have dealt with the comments made by the hon. member for Yeoville. I should also like to thank him for his words of appreciation in regard to the war veterans. I think the hon. the Minister of Finance went a very long way when, instead of rectifying the problem that arose in 1976, as the hon. member for Umbilo explained, he shortened the phases. We discussed this matter with him in detail, and after meeting also the representatives of the war veterans he acceded to our request to reduce the different phases to one, instead of spreading them over two years or more. The hon. member also wanted to know what the effect of the formula would be. If necessary we can discuss that during the Committee Stage.

*In conclusion, I wish to point out once again that the whole system of pensions is a never-ending one. I shall give attention to the suggestions which hon. members made here. I must say that I am very grateful that I am dealing with a department in which the matters we handle do not really have a political complexion. It is very reassuring for me to know that my first parliamentary session in my new capacity can end on this note.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, there is only one aspect here which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. That is the question of the effective date, which, according to this specific clause, is to be retrospective to 1 January 1979. I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister will inform the House why it has to be retrospective to that date.

Mr. Chairman, the real reason for this is to bring it into line with other Pension Laws pertaining to members of the House of Assembly, etc.

†It is only the question of bringing them all into line. If we were to decide on another date now, there might be other complications. Therefore we take one date which will apply to all in order to bring all the relevant measures into line.

*This is being done merely for the sake of similarity.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, allow me to say right at the outset that I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for the suggestions he has made here today, and also for his promising to give this matter his attention. Clause 6 relates in particular to section 4 of the Military Pensions Act, 1976. It seeks to insert a new section 4A in the said Act, and contains a provision in connection with the payment of pensions instead of consolidated pensions to retired military staff.

I am also grateful to the hon. member for Yeoville for his highlighting the question of whether or not the consolidated amount will be more or less than the amount payable thereafter. The hon. the Minister quite correctly pointed out the proviso in this new section 4A, which reads as follows—

I should, with respect, like to ask the hon. the Minister for a double assurance now in connection with this. In terms of the relevant provisions for consolidation all pensions payable under the different Acts were consolidated, and the consolidated amount paid out. An assessment was made on the basis of a man’s status at that stage, viz. on the basis of whether he was married, single, divorced or a widower. Should such a member of a pensions scheme now change his status, I believe, it is common knowledge that there will be an automatic review of his position by the department. It will not be necessary for him to apply for such a review. The department will automatically review every military pension payable and bring it up to date with the new system as opposed to the old consolidated system, which falls away now. The pertinent question therefore is that if the status of a member of a pension fund has changed from the time of the first assessment thereof for the purposes of a consolidated pension to his new assessed status under the present system, will that proviso still hold good in the sense that the amount payable to him now will not be less than the consolidated pension he would otherwise have received? That is the double assurance I should like the hon. the Minister to give me now, because I came to the conclusion earlier—rightly or wrongly—that there would be a reduction in his pension after consolidation if his status should change. Therefore I should like the hon. the Minister to clarify this for me. I think this is very important, especially in the case of an ex-serviceman.

We should also bear in mind that some 35 years have passed now since the end of World War II. Nevertheless, I do feel that we are really getting somewhere now and that we should bring this matter to a more realistic end.

Mr. Chairman, as one who has been closely and consistently concerned with this matter since the 1976 legislation, I too would like to place on record the fact that we have now brought justice to a group who I believe have suffered a gross injustice. I have always believed and fought for the principle that a man who was hit by a bullet, whether it was fired by a Nazi, a Fascist or a terrorist, had served his country in exactly the same way. I have always felt that it was a complete injustice that people who had suffered the same disability, for the same cause and in the same way, should have been compensated in different ways. Although it has taken four years and it is ahead of schedule, which one welcomes, I still think that it should not have been so. But now that injustice has been wiped out, and I want to say to those who served in the First and Second World Wars that they have now got what is due to them, and it is appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, I should first like to reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow. As I read the clause, it appears to me that a person will not be worse off than before, and I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I will make a point of seeing that he is not worse off. I do not know whether that falls under the definition of a double assurance, but that is the assurance I can give according to the Act. I shall see that that is carried out.

I should also like to thank the hon. member for Durban Point. After having gone into this matter very carefully—and make no mistake, it is not an easy matter; a pension is a complicated type of thing—it did seem to me that this matter should be rectified, and for that reason I recommended to the hon. the Minister of Finance that we should rather do this in one run while we have the money, instead of waiting for the phases, which might fall during a time when money is perhaps not so plentiful. I thank the hon. member for his very kind words in this regard.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, may I draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the question raised by the hon. member for Yeoville. Will he be kind enough to tell us how “formula IV” works?

Mr. Chairman, there are a few mistakes in this clause and I accordingly move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is in a position to give us some details on “formula IV”, which was referred to by the hon. member for Yeoville and whether he will explain exactly what “formula IV” is?

I must say that unfortunately I am unable to explain fully at this stage, because this is a little unexpected. I had hoped that I would have been able to clarify this matter with the hon. member during the discussion of this clause, but unfortunately I cannot give the hon. member all the particulars at this stage.

I shall get them from you later.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Clause 16 provides for increased benefits to be paid to widows. I particularly welcome this, because as the hon. member for Brits quite correctly pointed out in his Second Reading speech, providing protection for widows and women is very important. I think, however, that it is necessary that some comment should be made on this clause, as we have only two female members in this House. The improved benefits for widows are very welcome, because the problem of retirement is, in fact, a problem that affects women more than men. If one has a look at the latest insurance life expectancy tables, one notes that the life expectancy for a man is 66 years, and for a woman 73 years. In other words, women live longer than men by seven years. Consequently, a lot of the problems with regard to pensions affect widows particularly. It is very important that there should be protection for the widow. With the interdepartmental Committee’s report coming up, I would ask the hon. the Minister if he would not look at the recommendations in the light of the fact that women do live longer than men.

Mr. Chairman, I can only confirm what the hon. member for Edenvale has said. It also forms part of my duty to sign certificates from time to time for all our senior citizens who reach the age of 100 years. I signed three yesterday—all for females—and I think I can count on the fingers of one hand the men who have reached that age since I took over this post. Therefore, I think there is a problem in that regard. I do not know whether one can deal with it in isolation, but in this way we are trying to improve the position. We shall also take a look at the rest of the Act to see if there is any hardship as far as females are concerned, in view of their longer life expectancy. When one really has many worries and many troubles one does age.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 18:

Mr. Chairman, clause 18 makes provision for the creation of a Stabilization Account, and this is also to be welcomed. In private pension funds we have something similar in that there provision has been made for a contingency fund for unexpected eventualities. The point I should like to make to the hon. the Minister is that the creation of this Stabilization Account is something which, again in view of the interdepartmental committee’s report, should be looked at for all pension funds. We are possibly going to have increased costs on pension funds arising out of the transferability of pensions and the vesting of pensions.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not take this one step further at a later stage and look at the whole question of asking pension funds or, in fact, putting a legal obligation upon them, to spell out what their unfunded liabilities are and what provisions they have made for future contingencies. I think it is important that everyone who contributes to a pension fund should know that that fund is safe and sound. In South Africa we have been fortunate up to date in that we have had no pension fund defaults, but if one looks at other countries which have more mature pension funds—a lot of our pension funds are still relatively new—one will find that there have been considerable problems both in regard to companies and State pension funds. I think particularly of the case of New York City where a lot of the financial problems that arose were because of liabilities that were due under the pension fund. I think this is something that should be spelt out because particularly with transferability and vesting there are going to be additional costs on pension funds. It is very easy to promise an improved pension fund benefit because one will sit with the problem in 10 or 20 years time and one does not have to make the necessary provision now.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s request is partly a problem for the hon. the Minister of Finance, but I will look into his request as well and if there is anything that needs discussing with the hon. the Minister of Finance, I shall see to it.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for the nomination of beneficiaries. I would like to make a point here out of practical experience in this particular field. The hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading pointed out problems that arise when one has gentlemen who have had two wives.

At the same time?

What makes you think they are gentlemen?

In answer to the hon. member for Sandton, I do not think they were married to more than one wife at the same time, but maybe the hon. the Minister can tell us about that.

This is a very real practical problem. I was once called in to a case where a gentleman had had two wives and a mistress, and there were eight minor children. [Interjections.] It is very difficult to have a serious discussion. The point, and a very practical one, is that often people make wills, or nominate beneficiaries, and then allow them to become outdated; in other words, they make their wills and nominations when they join the pension fund. They then stay with the fund for 10 or 15 years and no change is made for changes in their circumstances. What I ask of the hon. the Minister is whether—and this is a purely practical matter—the department involved could encourage people to look at the nomination clauses on a fairly regular basis, e.g. every two or three years, because in so many cases when people die the wills and nominations are completely out of date.

Mr. Chairman, with the examples the hon. member gave, perhaps we could make it easier if we included a definition of “gentleman” in this legislation.

With regard to the point made by the hon. member, I think it would be impossible for the department to have a PRO effort like that. I think it is more for the people who draw up wills, i.e. the attorneys and trusts, etc., to try to influence their clients and establish from time to time what they want done. I do not think the department will be able to put in a special effort to try to see that people do what they should with their money. We are only a sort of pay-out department and not a help-everybody-completely department.

Mr. Chairman, I think the definition of “beneficiary”, i.e. the person who will receive the gratuity, is rather wide. It also includes “any person who is not a dependant of such member”. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to give some guidance as to how far one could actually stretch this definition.

Mr. Chairman, this is actually the prerogative of the Director-General. He still has the total right to make any dispensation. The aim of this provision is only to allow a person to say what he would like to do with the money. There will have to be very good reasons for the Director-General giving the money to a certain person. Obviously, he will have to give it to somebody who is directly dependent or should have been dependent on that person. In the Second Reading debate the hon. member mentioned the question of girl friends, etc. To my mind a person such as a girl friend will not be taken into account so much in this respect, but I presume that even she could be considered. However, I think one must leave that to the Director-General. One must not bind him any further, because otherwise one would not need to provide for any discretionary powers at all. From my experience I know that one must make provision for discretionary powers in this regard. There are certain cases in which hardship is caused by someone either not thinking or being pigheaded and in such cases the gratuity has to be divided accordingly.

A girl friend could also be a dependant.

Yes, she could.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clarify a point I have made in respect of clause 22. I do not wish the Department of Health, Welfare and Pensions to run a national public relations campaign, but I would like the pension fund administrators to make their members aware of the fact that they should keep the administrators informed of changes in circumstances.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill gives effect to the recommendations embodied in the report of the Select Committee on Pensions. As hon. members know, these recommendations have already been agreed to by this House and in the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, we are happy to support the Bill. Every one of the five cases mentioned in this Bill has been very carefully considered by the Select Committee on Pensions. I am satisfied that each case is a deserving one. We are, generally, very grateful that the procedure exists whereby deserving cases which are not covered by existing laws can be dealt with. The only remedy to ease the situation in such cases is a Bill such as this and therefore we are happy to support this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, in order to save the hon. the Leader of the Opposition having to make a speech I want to put a question to him right at the outset, and I would appreciate it if he would reply to it in the course of his next speech. Last night the hon. the Leader of the Opposition referred to statements made by me and the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs. Incidentally I want to say that his quotations from what I ostensibly said, did not give the complete picture, but I shall leave it at that. In my opinion the effect of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition insinuated with what he said was that we were prejudicing with our statements, with what we had said our party’s policy was, the whole matter of an investigation into a future constitutional dispensation. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in a friendly way whether he and members of his party have at any time since they have been serving on the Constitution Commission, on their part mentioned or spelled out their party’s policy in respect of a constitutional dispensation on any occasion.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Minister, as chairman of the commission, is aware that our policy document was one of the first to be placed at the disposal of the commission. It was submitted to the commission in a completed form …

I do not mean on the commission but outside the commission.

Then I do not understand. We explained it on the commission and I also explained our policy from one platform to another at public meetings. I do not want to imply for one moment that the hon. the Minister, as chairman of the commission, in any way tried to guide the proceedings as though he wanted to force his party’s policy upon us. That was not the case. But I am suggesting that from the explanation of the majority report, which was accepted by the Government and as it was spelled out here during the Second Reading, it is quite clear to me that the reason—this is the key question I asked—for the Blacks being excluded from the President’s Council is directly related to the policy of the NP. In fact, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs made this clear and the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs made this very clear. He said—

After that, the hon. the Minister of the Interior tried to explain …

May I just interrupt the hon. the Leader of the Opposition?

No, you may ask a question, but you may not interrupt me.

You must not impute that statement to me.

No, but I can read out to the hon. the Minister what he said. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs expressed himself as follows (Hansard, 5 June 1980, col. 8191)—

Unfortunately the hon. the Minister could not be present last night; I accept why not. The point which was really at issue was that the standpoint had been adopted in certain quarters that it was a temporary, incidental misfortune that Blacks could not serve on the Presidents Council, but that it would be rectified in time. This is a start, and it is unfortunate that they are unable to serve on it, but matters will in due course be rectified. This is the standpoint which was adopted by the NRP. In contrast to that I try to state that the Government’s standpoint was not that it was unfortunate, incidental, or merely an interim measure, but that it was right that this was so, for it has a bearing on the policy of the Government. Then I tried to illustrate that if it was the case that the exclusion of Blacks was a function of the Government’s policy, then I as Leader of the Opposition had as much right to fall back on a policy standpoint and to explain why I was not prepared to participate in such an aspect.

I now come to the second point which I should just like to deal with briefly. The hon. the Minister of the Interior referred to it himself by saying that some members had hit upon valid arguments when they asked us why we were prepared to serve in Parliament if we were not prepared to serve on the President’s Council. I can just point out that a campaign is now being launched in Die Burger in which the argument that we are boycotting certain institutions is being used. [Interjections.]

Order!

I should just like to point out that it is possible to conduct such an argument on two levels. If it is the case that if one serves here then one must serve there, then the implication is that that institution is equal in status to this House. [Interjections.] That is the one argument.

It is a poor argument.

I could also put the argument the other way round. If it is good enough for us to serve on the President’s Council, is it good enough for Coloureds to serve in the House of Assembly. Is it, or not? In the nature of things, the reply is going to be negative. If they reply in the negative, there is by implication a difference between the two institutions. There is a second argument as well. They say that if Parliament has created an institution in a democratic way, we are morally obliged to participate in that institution. That is nonsensical.

I can mention examples. When the High Court of Parliament was created in 1952, the then official Opposition boycotted that High Court by not attending it. However, that did not prevent the Government from proceeding unilaterally and deciding in any event that the Appeal Court’s decision had been wrong and rejecting it. Subsequently, however, the Appeal Court rejected the decision of the High Court of Parliament. There we had an institution which had been introduced by Parliament. It was created by legislation of the highest legislative institution in this country, but the official Opposition boycotted it and did not participate in it, and rightly so. I support them in that decision.

As recently as 1976 Parliament created a body, known as the Parliamentary Commission for Internal Security. It was established by means of Act 67 of 1976. The official Opposition is still boycotting it now, and the official Opposition at that time also boycotted it. Surely that, too, was an institution established by Parliament. Why is it being boycotted? Because the Opposition believe that the institution which was created by the majority party in this House is of such a nature that they are not prepared to serve on it. They tried to explain it on a standpoint of principle.

I could now put a question or two of hon. members who are kicking up such a terrific fuss about our boycotting the President’s Council. I can explain on the basis of principle why we do not want to participate. I say I have examined the legislation and find nothing in it which is in any way a reflection of the standpoint of the hon. member for Mooi River or that of the other hon. members who say that it just so happens and that it is a pity that the Blacks cannot serve on the President’s Council. I see nothing of the kind in the Bill, for the Bill tells me distinctly and clearly in terms of clause 34 that Blacks are being excluded. If I ask why, three hon. Ministers explain it to me in very plain language. They did not say that it was merely by chance, they did not say that it was wrong, that it was temporary, that it was unfortunate, that it was because of a number of verkramptes in the caucus; it was so because it was correct and it was so because it was part of the NP’s policy that Blacks must be excluded. They said it was so because Blacks must be excluded since effective channels already exist for them. It was so, as the hon. the Minister himself said, because a precedent had been created for it since a President’s Council had been envisaged in the draft legislation from which Blacks would be excluded. All these reasons are being advanced, and not one of the wishful-thinking reasons in terms of which it is the start of great, new things and a hand-in-hand stroll to the promised land. No, it has been spelled out very clearly to us.

If the Government has a hidden agenda for the President’s Council and the hidden agenda is nothing but its policy of separate development, I, as Leader of the official Opposition, have no choice but to say that in that case I am not going to help the Government to implement its policy of separate development more effectively. But what we are prepared to do—this we have said from the beginning, although it is not even a full reflection of our policy—is to re-assess the matter if the Government agrees to include Black people in the President’s Council in an advisory capacity—not in a permanent or binding capacity—so that we can conduct a dialogue with them on the possible constitutional developments which could take place. We said this right from the start. The cardinal difference between the Government and us with regard to this standpoint is that we believe in a policy of negotiation. Negotiation means that competing parties weigh up each other’s policies and try to ascertain whether they can reach a compromise somewhere. Against that, the consultation in which the Government believes merely means that they say: “Here is my plan. Come, let me explain to you how you fit into that plan. I shall then try to do things to the best of my ability so that we can achieve the highest measure of cooperation.” Thus there is a cardinal difference. The one is a willingness for real negotiation on constitutional developments. The other is not a question of negotiation on constitutional developments, but merely an explanation to other parties as to how they have to fit into an already formulated plan. One of the clearest renditions of this was the explanation given by the hon. member for Virginia as to why Black people had to be excluded on grounds of principle. According to the hon. member for Virginia it is correct that they should be excluded. It is right. He said so himself.

These people say that it is a pity, but nevertheless the legislation is going to make it possible. How can we reconcile this? How can we reconcile what is clearly stated in the legislation with the standpoint they are adopting? They say it is a pity, but it will be rectified, for the President’s Council is in reality creating the start of the rectification process. However, the Government states finally and clearly—and I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for that—that Blacks must be excluded and that it is correct that they should be excluded. He said it was part of the official policy that they should be excluded.

I shall quote to the hon. member what I said.

No, I am not trying to misrepresent the hon. the Minister’s words. If I am making a mistake, he is welcome to tell me, for I should like to have this matter cleared up. As I understand it, I have no doubt that there is no doubt in the mind of the Government that Blacks must not be involved in the President’s Council. I am not alleging that they have not made alternative provision for Blacks, but there is a clear difference in the quality or standard of the channels which are going to be created. It is not only I who say so, but the Government itself, through hon. members on the Government side, who explained this very clearly. That is why I say that in our arguments we should stick to what we really have, and not try wish into this legislation what is not in it. This legislation is crystal clear. The specific provision which the hon. member for Durban Point would like to have committed is the crux of the President’s Council in terms of those hon. members’ standpoint. They say it is correct that Blacks should be excluded. I agree with them that this is unfortunate, and yet I see nothing in this legislation which suggests to me that they are ultimately going to be included.

Mr. Chairman, this measure is introduced here at a time when communication on a statutory basis between the White sovereign Parliament and the other population groups in South Africa has, to a large measure, broken down, or does not exist. In respect of the Coloured people, the body or mechanism which existed, has been abolished. In the case of the Indian people, the election of their representative council has been delayed, and in relation to the Black people, government consults with their legislative bodies and administrations on an ad hoc basis.

Therefore, at this time when we have boycotts of buses and schools, strikes, etc., it is essential that communication be restored where it has broken down and that communication be created where it does not exist. This clause which we are now debating seeks to become the machinery for the creation of just that dialogue—for just that communication. It is ironic that where the instrument proposed in terms of this clause is specifically designed for the purpose of creating dialogue, consultation and deliberation among the various population groups of South Africa, two of the three joint designers of this machinery seem to be determined to try to wreck it. On the one hand the official Opposition is deliberately, by its violent opposition, determined that this shall not work, that they will not participate in it and that they will persuade the other race groups, the other population groups, not to participate. [Interjections.]

Nonsense.

They did so by example, to such an extent that the chairman of their own caucus was expelled for saying that he believed that they should participate and had advised other population groups to do so too. I am not going to quibble, however, because I am not here for the purposes of nit-picking. We are dealing here with the future of South Africa, at a critical time in South Africa’s history, and one of the three designers of this instrument deliberately says it will not participate and is doing everything in its power to make the instrument collapse. That brings me to another designer, and I think we need some chiropractors here, because there seems to be a problem with the Government. Those hon. members seem to have stiff necks. They are so busy looking behind them, over their shoulders, that they are dragging their feet on this measure. [Interjections.] The fault does not lie in the measure. The measure is here, as agreed to in the commission between the Government, the official Opposition and ourselves, with the exception of the one clause which I shall deal with.

What is missing is presentation, the marketing of this machinery. [Interjections.] I charge the Government with being so ham-handed in its marketing of this instrument that it is sabotaging its own objective and intention. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications made his contribution, and has now withdrawn, but I have not heard one of his colleagues say he did not speak for them, for the Government. The hon. the Minister is defending this measure with very little enthusiasm and with very little conviction because the Government has accepted a measure which it is afraid to present with its full implications to South Africa. I consequently wish to move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 17, in lines 10 and 11, to omit paragraph (b);
2. (2) on page 17, in line 52, after “interest” to insert:

The one is a matter of principle, as recorded by us in the addendum to the report of the commission. The amendment is designed to delete the proposed new section 103(b) which reads—

leaving as the only racial qualification the fact that a person is a South African citizen. Both the official Opposition and the NRP believe that this should be deleted. We believe that it should be open to any South African to serve on this commission. The difference between the official Opposition and ourselves is whether this is fatal to the operation of this instrument as a whole.

Let me turn to the proposed new section 106(4) which reads—

1. (a) may, for the purposes of the performance of its functions and in its discretion, consult with any person or State institution …

Then comes—

All parties represented on the commission voted for that provision. After the official Opposition had submitted its minority report and after it had been voted down and after the official Opposition had voted against the limitation to White, Coloured, Indian and Chinese population groups, in fact in the third last vote taken all four parties voted for this clause, with one reservation by one member, if I remember correctly. I want to give the exact reference because it is important that we have absolute clarity. It says here that in regard to the functions of the committee, as proposed,—No—there was no qualification. The only matter that stood over was B(2). It stood over until the next meeting with a view to further discussion in conjunction with subparagraph (b)(ii). When it came to finally putting this provision, having failed to reach agreement on one council, we all agreed that there should be joint consultation between the President’s Council and a council consisting of Black South African citizens, in the form of a joint committee, if necessary or if so decided. In other words, provision was made for talking around a table. This means that all population groups will sit around one table. It then means that, arising from that, any recommendation can be made. The hon. the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate that the position of the Black people could be reconsidered. He did not commit the Government, but he said that the position could be reconsidered. It is in order to record that in this measure that I have moved my second amendment dealing with the advice the council may give. I move this amendment to place on record that it is possible and within the scope and power of the commission for a Black Council’s Committee and a President’s Council’s Committee to recommend together and for the President’s Council to recommend a change in its own composition, a change which could bring in representatives or members of the Black Council. [Time expired.]

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept amendment (1), as it is in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday, when the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, he referred to me in terms as though I were some kind of an idiot or fool who had emerged from the bush in starry-eyed innocence, like a troubadour singing new songs of love about the new constitution, and all this kind of thing. I now welcome the opportunity to put my case to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, because I think there is a valid case to be made out, against the background that what is proposed in this legislation is not the ideal solution which this party would have liked or that party would have liked. But the argument then goes about whether this is an instrument which is adequate for the purpose of creating a new constitution which is going to include all the groups of people in South Africa in a working arrangement in order to bring peace and harmony.

An apartheid structure.

If that hon. member will give me a chance, I shall explain to him that I feel that this is adequate to create that sort of institution, a constitution which all of us want in South Africa and which is going to enable us to live in peace and harmony in the future. Let me put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the first point, that the credibility of the Government is at stake in this measure. If the Government fails to make this work, the Government—the hon. Prime Minister and those hon. Ministers—cannot survive as a Government in this House, because the reaction will come from hon. members inside that party and from the radical right outside that party, who will say that they have tried to make arrangements with the Black population group and other population groups, that they have tried to reach an agreement, and that they have failed. If they fail, there will be a reaction amongst the supporters of that party and the others outside of this Parliament, and the story will then be the old story of “Nou is ons terug by die boer en sy roer”. That is what the reaction is going to be. The entire credibility of the Government, the hon. Prime Minister and all his hon. Ministers, rests upon making this Bill into an instrument that will work. And not only that, but the entire credibility of the White Man rests upon that. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. If this does not work, we will be worse off than when we started and I think that every hon. member of that Cabinet is entirely conscious of that fact. If we do not make it work, the whole exercise will be an exercise in futility and it will build up the sort of animosity that will wreck any future negotiations that could possibly take place. I have made my first point, viz. that the credibility and the integrity of the Government are at stake in making this work. I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition if he will accept that. [Interjections.] Right the basic difference between us then is, as we have debated so far, that we believe that this is a measure which is adequate for the purpose of creating a new constitution. Let me now refer to the statement of the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs that there are adequate channels for Blacks. Let me make the attitude of this party quite clear, viz. that there are Governments of the Black people in South Africa which have elected leaders who are leaders of their people in essence and in truth. If one just mentions the names of Chief Phatudi, Chief Sebe and Chief Buthelezi, there is no doubt that they are people who are leaders each of their own group in this country. When it is said that there is a difference between the structural arrangement in politics in South Africa for the Black community and the White community, I would see that as being an entirely logical thing to say, because there are groups of people in the White areas who are not in separate areas with a separate Government and a separate leader. What I say, is that there are leaders of groups in this country who are going to get together and who will work together if they are put in a situation where they can sit together, discuss and work out a common formula for the future development of South Africa, and if anyone wants to say that I am living in a dream world because I say that, I shall also accept that. I put it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that it is absolutely impossible, having got those people together around a table and having started a discussion, for a new constitution which will meet at least half the desires of all the communities of this country, not to emerge from that sort of discussion, given the goodwill by the people concerned. Nobody will say that that is a perfect solution, but it will be a step in the direction in which all of us want to go. Other developments out of that constitution may take place at a later stage. However, people should be brought together to negotiate, even though they may be distrustful. [Interjections.] It relates to the clause in the Bill which was read out by the hon. member for Durban Point where he said that there will be a discussion between a subcommittee of the President’s Council and a committee of the Black Council to be established by an Act of Parliament. That is the entire intention of the whole of the commission. The report dealt with it, so that we would lead to that situation, viz. that there would be discussion with all groups of people drawn from these two councils.

I believe that it is possible, given that situation where people are put together in a consultation of that nature, that something will emerge which will be different from this Parliament, which exercises White sovereignty over those parts of the Republic which do not fall within the homelands. Clearly that has got to change, but how do we do it? If we can set up a negotiating process where that can be discussed, I am convinced that we will emerge with a consensus, as has happened in other negotiations close to us, e.g. the Turnhalle, where people might have started with totally different points of view and yet in the course of negotiations emerged with a consensus. I think it is vitally important that we should not exclude that. I say again that this is the one chance we are going to get. If this chance fails there will be a reaction from the radicals on both sides and they will then start dictating the terms for discussion. This Bill makes provision for the conservative leaders of all communities to get together. It is the last chance the conservative voice will have to be heard in an attempt to sort out a solution together. Anybody who tries to prohibit or prevent that from happening is, to my mind, destroying the position of the entire conservative establishment in all groups. I take it from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he is a conservative. He is not one who wants to upset things and throw things overboard, or anything like that. He would be involved with the conservatives.

That is right. That is why I am opposed to the Bill.

The fact that he withdraws himself and does not want to take part in that sort of situation is, to my mind, an absolute tragedy because …

You are in a dream world.

Surely the dream world is the one in which the hon. members are living in the thought that their party, as their hon. leader said last night, still has a role to play as the spokesman for Black rights, and that kind of thing.

I did not say that. When did I say that?

That is what I understood the hon. member to say last night. [Interjections.] That is certainly the role that is being put forward by the hon. members of that party over the years, viz. that they are the spokesmen for Black rights, for the oppressed masses, and all that kind of thing. It goes on all the time. If ever there was a dream world that is it. It has been quite rightly stated that there are bodies outside this Parliament which are going to be involved in the discussion of our future. One of the problems we have in this Parliament is that it has by its own action—because it has voted in the way that it has and because it has excluded people who are not Whites— moved itself to the edge of political development. There are other power bodies which must be involved. So what we have got to do is to restructure all groups so that we can get back into a real kind of discussion.

I believe that where the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says this is merely a restructuring of apartheid, even if it was the intention of the Government—that is a matter for debate—the Government, Opposition and other groups are put in a negotiating situation and the intention of the Government becomes an unimportant and irrelevant factor because of the negotiating situation where everything—and make no mistake, it will be everything—as we have it here today will become a matter for negotiation and discussion. No one can say that when we get into that situation, the parameters within which we govern our lives today are going to remain as they are. So I think it is not wishful thinking on my part and I am not dreaming. [Time expired.)

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Leader of the NRP. I do not think that one hon. member of this House can accuse this side of the House of not having taken steps during the discussion of this Bill, including the Second Reading, to confirm our faith in the proposed President’s Council. In fact, during the Second Reading I addressed the radical people on both extremes of the political spectrum in this country. I make no apology for doing so, for the important reason that the proposed President’s Council represents certain important integral standpoints. What are they? Just see what progress we have made during the past eight months. There is a Bill before this House in terms of which Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics are able to deliberate together on a constitution. This side of the House referred the draft legislation to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament which was representative of all the political parties sitting here, before its principle had been accepted. There was a declared adoption of standpoint on certain things; also on the question as to whether or not Blacks should in any way be involved in any amendments of the constitution. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows this. Surely he knows it is correct.

What happened on the commission? By means of consultation and deliberation on the commission one standpoint was unanimously adopted. As far as the commissioners of my party are concerned, I want to say that they adopted that standpoint without consulting the Government or the caucus beforehand. I sat there as a commissioner, as nothing else. If the Government wants to reject my recommendations as a commissioner, it is entitled to reject them. However, I have a duty, a duty which I as a commissioner discharged in an impartial way. The one who knows that best is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

However, what is implicit in the provision for the creation of a President’s Council as it is defined here? It is that all people are affected by a constitution and because this is so, all people must be afforded the opportunity of advising and deliberating. This, I maintain, is the essence of what is contained in this clause. In other words, it is stated directly, and by implication, in this clause that all the population groups that are affected by any constitutional change have to participate in the process of consultation and advising. Surely this is the essence, the principle, which is involved. Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot differ from me in this regard.

It is in the preamble.

Very well then. Apart from the preamble, which is a declaration of intent, there is also a practice which one must take into account.

That is correct.

Give me a chance. I did not interrupt the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking.

But you are asking questions.

I just want to try to bring home to him the point that for the first time in the history of this country, a history extending over more than 300 years, this Parliament, in which the constitutional sovereignty is in any event vested, is institutionalizing an institution which not only endorses the concept of consultation, but also creates a vehicle, a mechanism, within which the consultation can take place.

That is what I said.

Sir, I am not quarrelling with the hon. member for Durban Point now. Nor do I want to quarrel with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I do want to add something to this. If I am in earnest in seeking a democratic answer to this country’s problems, and there are few hon. members who do not agree that the chances, the probabilities, of success are fewer than those of failure, we must use every vehicle which could make this possible, whether we agree with it or not. I say use every opportunity to make this possible. I am deeply disappointed, not at the standpoint of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition as to what the solution is—he is entitled to his standpoint and I can differ with him in that regards—but because he does not want to use an opportunity, a mechanism, which contains the possibility of consultation. Furthermore I want to tell him, and I am not doing so in a spirit of reproach, that if it is not possible for us in this House to reach agreement, in spite of our formulated political standpoints, on whether we want to use instruments or not, what hope is there in this country of our getting other people to co-operate with one another and with us? What hope is there? No hope whatsoever. I want to emphasize that I am not making an appeal for the National Party now. The NP is not more important than this country. Nor am I quarrelling with the Opposition, for neither are they, but I am trying to discharge my responsibility as a member of this House which is in the final instance the final arbiter as to what changes are going to come or are not going to come. This is what I am trying to do, and I ask other hon. members to do so too. Of course I believe that the NP’s policy is the only instrument for a peaceful solution in this country, but that is irrelevant now. What is relevant with regard to this legislation is that we, regardless of what we think the solutions are, must bring together a measure of points of contact among one another so that they can form a basis for dialogue with other people and for involving them in dialogue. If this historic occasion in this House is not used, then we are failing this House and this institution.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister stated the standpoint that the President’s Council would create an opportunity to find solutions to the racial problems of South Africa in future. He asked the Opposition and all other people involved to climb onto this vehicle to be able to participate in finding solutions. However, what the hon. the Minister does not realize it that that vehicle of his does not have any wheels. It will not move because it cannot move, for in creating the vehicle the Government omitted to comply with the most fundamental requirement, viz. that that vehicle should be representatives of all the groups in South Africa in the same body and on an equal basis.

The hon. member for Mooi River said “as hierdie ding nie slaag nie”. He is still dreaming, for even today the President’s Council and the Government’s proposals are an abject failure. They will not work because they cannot work. I challenge the Government to show me one significant leader of another group in South Africa who has declared his willingness to serve on the President’s Council. Since the Government cannot point out such a person, the President’s Council cannot work. [Interjections.] No, the Government is itself responsible for the fact that this cannot succeed for, as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said, its proposals must fit into the pattern of separate development. What we are dealing with here is a front organization for apartheid. The President’s Council is a front organization for apartheid. In addition it is going to proceed by means of public funds. The Government must realize that it is not going to work, firstly because it has cast it in the mould of apartheid and, secondly, it has eliminated the Black man.

Should the Government have cast it in your party’s mould?

Furthermore, the Government has by means of certain spokesmen, ensured that the Black man has been humiliated to such an extent that it is impossible for him to even consider serving on the President’s Council.

I am pleased that the hon. the Prime Minister is present in this House today. Oh well, there he goes again. The hon. the Prime Minister does not have the courage to carry out a duty he has towards South Africa. That duty is that the hon. the Prime Minister owes South Africa and the Black man an apology. [Interjections.] We had hoped that during the course of the Committee Stage today he would avail himself of the opportunity to apologize and furnish an explanation on the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. All we had was the following which was described in Die Burger of 7 June as follows …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: It is the sound tradition in this House that if an hon. member has made a remark and subsequently withdrawn it unconditionally, it is wiped off the slate and is not again referred to, or ought not to be referred to, in this House.

But that is not a point of order.

It is not a point of order. I am sorry.

That is not a point of order because …

Order! I have already ruled that it is not a point of order. The hon. member for Bryanston may proceed.

The effects of that statement still exist today and will exist for all time, and always be to South Africa’s detriment. This is what Die Burger said—

That is the Prime Minister—

That does not dispose of the matter. Does the Government not realize the unprecedented, incalculable and irreparable harm that that single statement has done to South Africa? Does the Government not realize that every enemy of South Africa throughout the world today is seizing upon those words to attack South Africa? [Interjections.]

Order!

Does the Government not realize that the effort of every friend of South Africa’s to speak on behalf of South Africa is being frustrated by those words today? As a result of that—this is not the only reason, it is the straw which broke the camel’s back—the President’s Council and the rest are done for. Nothing remains of them. The Coloureds and the Indians have dissociated themselves from the President’s Council and the Blacks are not going to participate in it at all. The major responsibility concerning this unfortunate incident rests squarely on the shoulders of the hon. the Prime Minister. It rests on his shoulders, for he is responsible for the statements and the conduct of his Ministers. If he were worth his salt as a leader in South Africa, he would, immediately after his hon. the Minister had used those words, have repudiated and dismissed him.

You are not even worth your vinegar.

If he had done so, he would have gained status in South Africa, but because he did not do so, we must accept that he and his Government agree to a certain extent with those statements and the attitude of that hon. the Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister was quick to haul the hon. the Minister of Public Works over the coals in connection with the Craven Week affair, at least the first time. However, when the hon. the Minister issued exactly the same challenge to the hon. the Prime Minister the second time, the hon. the Prime Minister sat there with a feeble smile and did nothing. Now South Africa, the Black man of South Africa, and all the world can see that the Prime Minister of South Africa is held captive by his right wing and that he has neither the courage nor the power in his own party to take steps to rectify this matter. His image, which was built up so meticulously last year, has been destroyed step by step this year as a result of the actions of his party, and as a result of his own actions. [Interjections.] It is a bad day for South Africa that we are saddled with a party, a Government, a Prime Minister, who does not have the courage.

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

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am discussing the fact that these plans before the House at present, are being wrecked by the Government itself. The Government had the means, even at a late stage, to salvage the matter, but the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet did not avail themselves of that opportunity. To proceed with this step, is a mere formality. It is in actual fact a failure. It can never work and will never work. We are merely wasting this country’s time. We are merely bluffing this country. You know, Mr. Chairman, and I know that it cannot work. [Interjections.]

I should like to spend some time discussing the attitude revealed by the words of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.

Discuss your own attitude.

He was being honest when he said what he said. [Interjections.] He was being honest and sincere, for that view of the Black man as being inferior, as being slow-thinking and different from the White man, a person who is not part of South Africa, has been the foundation of the NP’s policy for the past 50 years now. There are dozens of examples I could quote. [Interjections.] Let me mention a few.

Order!

In 1948 or 1949 Mr. Eric Louw referred to the Indian representative at the UN as “daardie koeliemeid”. Karel de Wet, after 60 people had been shot dead in Soweto, said in this House that it was a pity that more had not been killed. Jimmy Kruger …

Order! The hon. member must return to the clause.

Sir, I am talking about the attitude of the NP which forms the foundation of what happened here. [Interjections.]

Order!

He is hysterical.

After the Biko case the hon. the Minister of Justice …

Order! I instructed the hon. member to return to the clause. I cannot see how this part of his speech is in any way relevant.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the point … [Interjections.] I am discussing the reason why the President’s Council is a failure. [Interjections.] Yes, as a result of the attitude of the NP.

Order! During the Committee Stage hon. members may discuss the particulars of a clause and not the principle. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has already discussed the principle of the clause. The hon. member must now confine himself to the clause.

I say … [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, this is a constitutional debate and this fact has been stressed at different times during this debate. In a constitutional debate of this kind one would expect that speeches would be dignified. One would expect that hon. members would strive to be reasonably erudite, and one expects also that they will be reasonable. The hon. member for Bryanston has delivered a speech which is none of those things. It was delivered in a tone of voice which was virtually hysterical. It was …

Bombastic.

… bombastic. It was dogmatic. It was superficial. It was vulgarly emotional. [Interjections.] The hon. member latched onto a remark which was made in this House, an unfortunate remark because it is a fallacious remark. He latched onto that remark in order to discredit this specific legislation.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows, as does the hon. member for Sandton, who is unfortunately not in the House at the moment, and the hon. member for Sea Point, that at no time during the discussions and deliberations of the Schlebusch Commission did that sort of reasoning ever enter into the picture. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition and those hon. members know that no part of the justification of this particular clause of the Bill rests on reasoning of that kind. They know this. The hon. member for Bryanston, however, went further. He dredged long-forgotten statements from the past, statements that were made under very different circumstances. He did that to discredit the Government and this legislation.

I want to put it to the hon. member for Bryanston that his speech was unworthy of a debate of this kind. It was unworthy of this Parliament. I even want to add that it was unworthy of his party, and if it was not also unworthy of the hon. member himself, then his speech was unworthy of the voters of Bryanston, who deserve something better. They are, most of them, decent people, and most of them, I am sure, do not share the kind of sentiments that were expressed by the hon. member. [Interjections.] The fact is that that speech caused great harm and great damage. It involved a distorted image and a distorted perspective of the Government and of what the Government hopes to achieve. That speech does this country great harm. It is the kind of speech that will be used abroad. It is the sort of speech that will compound the references and arguments used against South Africa to discredit it as a Nazi society. That is the sort of use to which that speech will be put by media throughout the world.

I do not believe that the hon. member for Yeoville, for instance—I am not sure whether he was here then—could have agreed with the sort of sentiments that were expressed or with the tone of that particular speech. The particular eccentricities of the hon. member for Bryanston as a politician aside, there happens to be an important reason why the official Opposition is adopting that approach.

They obviously had a discussion. They obviously caucused and advised the hon. member for Bryanston to adopt this particular line on this specific provision, this specific clause. [Interjections.] The fact is that the official Opposition has taken a decision of momentous significance in South African politics. It is a decision of momentous significance. In every political party there are nuances. In every political party there are tensions. They will relate to particular aspects of ideology; they will relate to tactics; and in that particular political party there is a tension. There is a tension between those who believe that polarization in our society on racial lines is inevitable, who believe that they must take a decision now to establish alliances with Black and Brown militants in our society, and those others who … [Interjections.] The hon. member for Groote Schuur may laugh as much as he likes. There are others though who believe that the Whites in this country still have an initiative, an initiative which will determine whether our problems are resolved peacefully or not. That issue, that very basic question in White politics, and in that particular party, was revealed in their attitude towards this provision, because the people who won out there, who won out in the debate in the PFP, are the people who believe that polarization is inevitable, that Black majority rule is inevitable, and that one can write off any meaningful initiative from White society. Hence the particular line which is being adopted in this debate towards this particular provision.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is not present, but one considers his speech in the Second Reading on this issue, one sees that he said three things of particular significance and of some controversy. Firstly, he indicated that he personally would still serve on the President’s Council. In the second place he said that if his advice were asked by members of the Coloured or Asian community, he would recommend to them to serve on this council. Then he said something which is really important. He said that, as far as that political party is concerned, in terms of the interim report of the Schlebusch Commission it had rejected a system of universal franchise or “one man, one vote” in a single political system. He said that anybody who says that that is not the case of his own party should get out of the party. That was the spark that set the whole thing off. He was not kicked out because of his attitude on participation in the national convention; he was kicked out because the ideological left in that party had decided that this was the line they were taking and that this was the time to take that decision. And they took that decision in circumstances of considerable unrest. I believe it was a decision which was not rationally taken; I think there must have been a lot of emotion involved when they took that decision. It is for those reasons that they decided to stay out, and that is the point.

What clause is this?

I am dealing with that party’s attitude towards the President’s Council.

But now something is happening. The fact is that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has never left a political party of his own will. He may have created circumstances which would have necessitated his being expelled, but he has never left a political party of his own volition. They are going to have to kick him out.

Order! The hon. member is going very wide now.

Mr. Chairman, with great respect, all this turns on the attitude of that party towards the provisions of clause 34, i.e. the establishment of the President’s Council and the composition of the President’s Council. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is going to fight back on this issue and the fact is that, according to my information, the supporters of that political party are in vast numbers going to adopt the view of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It is also quite evident from the article which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has in The Cape Times today that there is a panic reaction on this particular issue. The average White South African accepts the sort of interpretation which was given here by the hon. member for Mooi River, who says that President’s Council will inevitably, logically, given the dynamics of an institution, come to play a dominant role in the constitutional development of this country. I believe it will play a dominant role in the development of social and economic relations between the communities, and that view is the dominant view among White South Africans, because it is a reasoned view, because it is a logical view and because this represents a progressive measure in the best sense of the word. That is why the official Opposition is now throwing everything it possibly can, every irrelevant argument, into discrediting this particular provision of clause 34 of this Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to give my view on clause 34 with specific reference to the proposed section 103(b). As I said in the Second Reading debate, I believe it should be deleted, but you, Mr. Chairman, have already ruled that that affects the principle.

Which you voted for.

I should like to state that I would have voted for its deletion in terms of the amendment standing on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. member for Durban Point. I would like to appeal to the Government to face the facts as they exist today in relation to this particular clause. Due to the fact that the Blacks have not been included in this council, coupled with the extremely negative publicity which appeared in the newspapers on this same issue, and coupled with the PFP’s call for a boycott, thereby influencing Blacks to boycott the same situation …

It is not true.

The PFP claim that they have not influenced Blacks.

You said that we called for boycotts.

In their motivation for boycotting this council, they are indirectly calling for a boycott.

You are talking nonsense.

The President’s Council is hard to sell at this stage. The Government must accept that it is very hard to sell it to the people of South Africa. The negative sentiment which exists at present cannot be ignored. I think that all parties in this House agree that a body of co-operation and consultation is absolutely essential, but dished up as it is at present, it is unacceptable to the masses. I believe, however, that this Government must succeed in forming this body. It must succeed in this in some way or another. I believe that the Government should find a way of rephrasing this particular clause in order to make it acceptable and palatable to the vast number of people—and that includes the Blacks, as well as the PFP—so that they can in fact serve on this particular President’s Council. I do not believe that it is too late for the Government to reconsider their position. They could merely delete the proposed section 103(b). That would solve the problem. They could also find some other solution very quickly, and I suggest that they put their thinking caps on and find something. This country needs it desperately.

I should like to turn to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at this stage. I should like to tell him that I personally like and admire him and have high regard for his capabilities as a speaker, but he yesterday accused me and other hon. members of living in a dream world. I have spent a lot of time on this Bill and carefully considered all the aspects of it. I am sure that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has done the same, as has the hon. member for Mooi River and many other hon. members of this House who do not agree with the way the PFP have handled this issue. I just take strong exception to the way the hon. Leader of the Opposition said we were living in a dream world. I reject that attitude with the contempt it deserves.

But he said it so nicely.

I am afraid that I cannot accept that, after members spent a lot of time and thought on such a Bill, which is so crucial to the future of our country, the hon. Leader of the Opposition can then turn around and say to them that they are living in a dream world. I guess the hon. Leader of the Opposition said the same to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

But you can still think in a dream.

Where I also disagree with the hon. Leader of the Opposition, is where he insinuated that we were happily and blissfully going along with the Government on this issue.

That is true.

That is not so. My position is very clear. The exclusion of Blacks is repugnant to me, as it is to the PFP and to the NRP and to all other races in this country. No member of the NP has offered any moral justification or, for that matter, any form of ethical or Christian basis for the exclusion of Blacks from this council. My duty to South Africa, however, is to state openly what my position is, and to plead the case for the inclusion of all races in this council. If I am unable, however, to persuade the Government—and I believe the PFP should look at it in the same way—in a democratic debate such as we are having right now to delete the proposed section 103(b), then I shall have to abide by the majority decision. If we are not prepared to abide by that decision, we must leave this House.

Nonsense!

If we cannot accept the majority decision …

Do you accept the Group Areas Act?

I do not sit in the body concerned with group areas.

But do you accept it?

I do not accept it, but that is not the issue. I do not accept it, but I am not taking part in the implementation of a provision to establish a body which will reconsider the Group Areas Act. My duty is to attempt to correct the wrongs I perceive, and not to abdicate that responsibility, as the PFP is doing. [Interjections.] I do not believe in boycotting bodies that this very House creates. This House is a body in which all hon. members here are participating. [Interjections.]

Order!

I believe that none of us can afford to boycott a body that has been created by this House. We cannot sit in this House, create a body and then reject it. That is my contention, and that is what the PFP are doing. Early in this session the PFP stated that they would take positive action but they have now tended towards negative action, protest politics and boycott and confrontation politics instead. It is a Black Sash type of politics. [Interjections.]

You are going nowhere.

The PFP seems to have gone out of its way to wreck the processes of this particular body. I am afraid that I cannot condone that action and cannot be party to it. Their duty should be clear, namely to debate, oppose and object, but having lost the debate, their duty is to continue with it on every forum that they can find, and the President’s Council is one of them. This forum can create the possible future development of this country.

You have not given one reason why.

I do not believe that we can abdicate our responsibility. The PFP is seeking confrontation, and they should cease that type of politics in this House.

The PFP violently objected to the non-democratic principle in clause 17 concerning the nomination of special members to this House. They also objected to clause 34 because of the non-democratic composition of the President’s Council. I agree with them on both clauses. However, they agree to sit in one of the bodies and accept the benefits thereof, but reject the other. How can that be consistent? [Interjections.] I cannot accept that. I agree with the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs where he pleaded, as I did in the Second Reading, that we should use every vehicle at our disposal to change the wrongs which we perceive. There is no other way that we can change the Government to the way we want it, but to ignore the vehicle would be suicidal to the country. I agree with his sincere plea to keep the doors open.

I would like to conclude. My plea to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition today is to let his hatred for the NP subdue. [Interjections.]

You said that of the NRP last time.

The PFP is going to destroy South Africa in the process. [Interjections.] I am serious. This plea is really sincere. Oppose the measures which cannot be agreed to, but work with the bodies we are forming in the country.

You are sincerely pathetic.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to convey my very sincere gratitude to the hon. members for Durban Point, Mooi River and Pietermaritzburg, for their positive attitude to this clause. I shall react in a moment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point.

I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that I think the time has arrived for them to lower the degree of piety they have maintained on this whole affair, a few notches. He kicked up a great fuss here this morning about my ostensibly having stated blatantly, along with the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, that because it was our party’s policy, we were opposed to Blacks on the President’s Council.

In respect of myself this is not true. What did I say in my reply to the Second Reading? I quote (Hansard 6 June 1980, col. 8294)—

That is the crux of what I said. Just as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says: “This is my party’s policy.”

Correct.

What is wrong with that?

Nothing.

Why then did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition take it amiss of me?

No, I did not take it amiss of you. I only said … [Interjections.]

A fact remains a fact. All of us say “This is our policy”, but a fact remains a fact. It is clearly stated in the proposed section 106 that the Government will in the first instance listen to the advice of the President’s Council and also to the advice of the President’s Council after the President’s Council has consulted with the Black man.

Yes, I concede that. There is no fault to find with that.

Well, then. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition adopted a strong standpoint in that regard this morning.

No, I adopted a strong standpoint on your policy, not on what the President’s Council has to do. [Interjections.]

That is why I told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that they should lower their degree of piety a little.

[Inaudible.]

I want to further and tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and his party—and now I am speaking as a politician and not in my personal capacity— what their problem with regard to the whole matter is. Their problem is fundamentally due to political arrogance. I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that if this side of the House were to say today that we agree at once to the appointment of Black members to the President’s Council and to a national convention, he would at once say that they would participate in it.

The two are not the same.

The simple reason for that is that the PFP proceeds from the assumption that nothing can work unless it fits in with the PFP’s schemes.

That is absolute rubbish.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member knows very well that to a very large extent he was accommodated by the commissioners on this side of the House with the wording of our preamble.

Correct.

The hon. member admits that that is correct. To a very great extent that wording contains a declaration of intent, and therefore the hon. member cannot say that we have not been accommodating in the past. However, with due respect and in all fairness I want to say that for two reasons I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member. The first reason lies in the fact that the hon. member wants to make a declaration of intent part of a clause. That will be very unneat in the first instance. In the second instance, when reading the proposed new section 106(1)(a) and the ensuing subsections, it is very obvious that the hon. member’s amendment is not necessary at all. In the proposed new subsection 106(1)(a) it is spelt out very definitely—

The only thing that is excluded is draft legislation, and draft legislation is legislation which is in the process of being drafted. They can always come forward with suggestions for legislation in terms of this provision. Therefore the hon. member’s amendment is totally superfluous in the first instance and, in the second instance, I am not prepared to make a declaration of intent part of this provision.

Mr. Chairman, I want to react at once to the hon. the Minister’s standpoint which he has just adopted here. I want to go back to his speech during the Second Reading, from which he quoted an extract. He said (Hansard, 6 June 1980, col. 8294)—

This is part of the legislation, and there is no objection to it. Of course this is part of the terms of reference of the President’s Council, but this is a discretionary freedom if one examines the proposed new section 106(4)(b) which stipulates that the President’s Council “may”—not “shall”—in its discretion take decisions for the aforementioned purposes.

It must.

No, a clear distinction is made.

Why are you blaming the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs?

I shall now tell you why. The following sentence in the speech made by the hon. the Minister of the Interior, which he also quoted, reads as follows—

This is the NP now—

Of course the President’s Council may discuss this matter again if they wish to, but the point I have made from the outset is that we are not discussing the President’s Council now. We are discussing the NP’s attitude to the inclusion of Blacks, and the attitude of the NP is that they believe that the Blacks must be excluded. This is a positive standpoint and not a negative one. They are positively convinced that Blacks must be excluded. This is the important point. The NP is the majority party in this House. What we are concerned with here is not what the President’s Council may decide in its wisdom in certain discretionary circumstances. We are concerned with the NP’s attitude. The NP is creating the President’s Council and want to make us part of it.

This party is not creating it. That is untrue.

Of course …

Parliament is creating it.

This legislation originates from the Government, i.e. the NP and we are being asked whether we will co-operate. In such a case we must, in all sincerity, as we do with all legislation, examine the legislation. We must listen to what motivation is being given for the legislation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs that I am taking the appeal he made this morning to heart. He said this morning that we should try to achieve unanimity and to reach agreement. Of course this is true. He referred to the four points on the President’s Council on which we achieved consensus. Furthermore he asked, if it was not possible for us to reach agreement within this House, how we were going to get other people to co-operate with us? That is a good point, but if I measure that statement of the hon. the Minister against this legislation, the condition is that we as Whites must meet here, and that we must exclude 70% of South Africa’s people from the President’s Council. [Interjections.] That is precisely true. That is why we say that this standpoint is one of the major causes of polarization in this country. We cannot polarize this country more than the Government has already done by means of its statements and this legislation. That is where the problem lies.

I consider it a misrepresentation of this party’s standpoint to imply that we are a boycott party, or advocates of polarization, etc. Our fundamental argument is that this legislation is polarizing the people. The people are being polarized in terms of a constitutional debate. By means of clause 34 a final decision is clearly being given in the legislation to exclude 70% of the population.

I reiterate the point which I have repeatedly stated before. There is a simple question, after I have taken all the sentiments expressed by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs to heart, and it is: Why? Why must the Blacks be excluded? I say in all honesty that I am not reproaching the hon. the Minister of the Interior for this, for he replied to that question during his Second Reading speech, just as the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs did. They replied to the question and said that the reason why they were being excluded was in the first place that there were adequate channels, secondly, that a precedent had been created for this in the draft legislation, and thirdly that the concept of independent States was an integral part of a constitutional dispensation for the future. All three of these considerations are direct consequences of the NP’s policy. This is precisely the point. I do not reproach them for this. I understand the argument. That policy is the source of polarization in South Africa, and I want nothing whatsoever to do with that polarization.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply to my amendment. I want to say quite frankly that I moved it with one specific purpose. In my first speech on this clause I said that the Government was dragging its heels, that it is presenting this measure in a low key and in terms which are not highlighting or emphasizing the opportunity to get together round one table. The emphasis which has annoyed the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been on the separation of the two functions —the separate bodies and the exclusion of Blacks. There has been a deliberate avoidance by most Government speakers—in fairness I must say there have been a few exceptions and I shall deal with them—to play down the sitting together round one table and to emphasize the existence of two bodies.

I therefore appreciate the speech by the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. What I wanted, was to get that sort of speech, to get it on record, to get it clearly, unequivocally and loudly stated in this Parliament that here will be created the opportunity for all races to sit round one table. I moved this amendment because I knew it would have to evince either a rejection or an acceptance of the concept. I accept that—I have been in Parliament long enough to know that—this sort of amendment, declarations of intent and superfluities are not part of good legislation. That is why I said, when I moved the amendment, that it had already been made clear by the hon. the Minister piloting this measure that it is within the terms of the Bill as it stands at the moment competent for this to happen, but I wanted it restated. What I really wanted to get was an official Government commitment to this, a Government commitment to the fact that the commission unanimously decided that all races, all population groups should be involved in the debate. This measure provides for all population groups, including Black South African citizens, to be involved.

They will be around one table in a joint committee. In that joint committee all races will sit round one table. It is on record that it is within the scope of this measure that the President’s Council, on the advice of that joint committee, can recommend a new approach to the ultimate, the final position of any population group, including Blacks. This is clear as daylight now, and this is what I wanted to get across so that we could get away from this back-pedalling that we have had from other hon. members who have spoken in this debate, avoidance of this simple issue that here we are providing machinery for Black people, Brown people, Indians and Whites to sit together in one committee, round one table, and debate the future together. This, however, is the blind spot of the verkramptes on the Government side and the official Opposition, the one not wanting it and the other promoting its method to a fundamental principle. But there is selective morality. When they want to make it a holy principle, it becomes an overriding issue, but when they have other principles that they do not want to promote to holy principles, those do not become overriding ones and they are prepared to serve. [Interjections.] I do not want to argue the point any further because it is so obvious and so blatant.

I want to correct one thing I said in my previous speech. I mentioned the acceptance of a committee of the President’s Council sitting in joint committee with other committees and consulting with a council for Black South Africans. I said all parties had accepted this. I did so from memory, I have refreshed my memory and it is incorrect. If the minutes are published, the very last vote taken before we got to the question of nominated MP’s, which is a completely different subject, quite separate from this— not the second last issue or the third last issue, as I thought, but the very last issue after we had voted and divided on whether there should be Blacks in the President’s Council or not and voted and divided on the question of the Vice State President—will reflect the following—

Let me quote the relevant phrase from paragraph (f)(ii) on page 6 of the interim report—

The whole commission agreed that the President’s Council should consult with a council consisting of Black South African citizens, with the exception of the hon. member for Sea Point. He went back to his caucus and said his people had gone mad because they had accepted a Black council. [Interjections.] The caucus told them not to do that, and that is why we have had this reversal. In the commission, however, there is the clear, loud, unequivocal reflection of the fact that the only vote recorded against this was that of the hon. member for Sea Point. He took his party in tow and told his hon. leader, the hon. expelled member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Sandton that they were wrong and that he would use his majority in the caucus to make sure that they did a somersault and that they opposed that issue.

[Inaudible.]

That is a fact. It is on record. That is why we see in this a mechanism, machinery, for all the peoples to get together to create dialogue and consultation and to share together in moulding the new Republic of South Africa. That is why I was so insistent on sparking, spurring and taunting the Government into coming out loudly and clearly and agreeing that this was the objective, and I have done it. So there can be no mistake about what the official Government attitude is. That is now on record, having been stated by the hon. the Minister in charge and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened once again to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and have really tried to ascertain what game he is playing, on whose behalf he is playing the game, and why.

That is a despicable remark. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Why is the hon. the Leader now becoming angry with me? I have not even said what I want to say.

You said I was playing a game, and asked on whose behalf I was doing so and why.

In any event I have not yet finished saying what I want to say. Either I must accept what the hon. the Leader said on the commission, or I must accept what he has said in this House. What must I now accept?

You must accept what I told you.

But must I accept what the hon. the Leader said on the commission or what he has said here. [Interjections.]

It is in any event one and the same thing.

No, it is not. The hon. member for Durban Point has just pointed out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that what he was saying now, was not the same as what he had said on the commission. [Interjections.] I want the hon. the Leader to understand my position. I should like to accept what he is saying, but I just want to know which of his statements I must accept. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is extremely sensitive about the fact that his statements, according to him, do not differ from each other, and about the fact that his statements, also according to him, do not differ from those of his colleagues. I should like to debate the matter with him. Can hon. members see what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is doing? He is trying to escape from the prison his party has created for him by imputing motives to this Government … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Oh please, if the hon. member for Green Point would like to say something, he need not do so in such a weird way.

Do not begrudge me the pleasure of enjoying it when I see a clown in action. [Interjections.]

That hon. colourless clown may as well keep quiet now. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point is not just a clown; he is a colourless clown. He is an absolutely colourless clown. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I said the hon. member was colourless, just like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He is pale. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I did not interrupt the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he was speaking. [Interjections.]

Order!

What the whole argument of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition amounts to is that the President’s Council was established by the Government in accordance with its own political or constitutional policy. Is that correct?

That is more or less correct. However, there are a few omissions.

I am now confining myself to the crux of the argument. There are a few other things that could be added.

Very well, but say so then.

Very well then. Let us now see whether what he says is correct. What is the NP’s policy for the Black peoples of this country?

Independent States.

That is correct, and also that they should exercise their final political rights there. If, therefore, the commissioners of my party and I want to propagate the standpoints adopted by the Government in the commission, surely there was never any suggestion whatsoever that Black people had to be involved in the dialogue.

May I ask a question?

No, just give me a chance now. The hon. the Leader may ask me a question later. But I first want to complete my argument. Surely, therefore, there was no suggestion of the creation of instruments—inadequate though they may be; that is irrelevant—by means of which Black people and White people and Coloured people and Asians could have discussions with one another, even though it is a committee. Surely than we have given our final decision. Surely the hon. member knows that. Notwithstanding my party’s policy —and surely the hon. the Minister of the Interior also said this here—and regardless of the respective standpoints of policy of the various parties pertaining to the future of and a constitution for this country, we as commissioners, because we are trying to follow the path of peace, are prepared to make a suggestion—we made that suggestion—that instruments be created by means of which it is possible for people to become involved in deliberation and consultation, with advice. The fact of the matter is that the proposal before the commission for the creation of an instrument which would make it possible for all people to become involved, originated from the NP commissioners in the first place. What followed subsequently were amendments to the proposal, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows that it is true. The other members of the commission also know this is true. How then can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say that all we came to do was to give shape to NP policy in the legislation before us? Surely that is factually incorrect.

Mr. Chairman, I just wish to ask the hon. the Minister in what respect this legislation is a deviation from NP policy. He must tell us this very clearly.

With all due respect, I am not arguing that the legislation before us is a similar or divergent policy. Did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition understand what I was saying to him? The fact of the matter is that my Party’s policy in respect of Black people is that we discussed their future in terms of independent States.

Yes.

Good. In other words, in terms of my party’s policy we need not conduct a dialogue with Black people. Surely we have already decided.

It is in fact your Party’s policy that …

Surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition cannot be that stupid. [Interjections.] I ask: What party is divided on this legislation?

That is a good question.

I ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and he must not be witty or advance semantic arguments: What party in this House is divided on this legislation? [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Leader of the Opposition at once that all the members of my party are going to vote for this legislation. Are his? [Interjections.] We cannot get away from this. The fact of the matter is that one of the founders of his party is not present.

So what!

If he is not present, why is he not present? Surely he does not deviate from the PFP in his views. All he is doing is what every member of this House ought to do and what every member of the various population groups of this country, who is in earnest about seeking a solution, ought to do. And it does not matter that the instrument I choose is not perfect in the legislation—at least there is one I can use. Surely this is what is at issue. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition knows this. Surely he knows the words of Robert Louis Stevenson: “To travel hopefully is better than to arrive.” He also said: “True success is to labour.” Let us measure him against this and then I shall be prepared to withdraw what I have said to him, for I am big enough to free him from the prison of dogmatic thinking … [Time expired.]

Order! The hon. member for Green Point used the word “clown” in connection with another hon. member. He must withdraw that word.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

In imitation of the hon. member, the hon. the Minister also used the word and I ask him to withdraw it as well.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, at what I consider to be the eleventh hour of the debate on this particular clause, I should like to direct my argument specifically at the hon. the Minister of the Interior and at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I believe that hon. members will appreciate that this clause is the engine room, the workshop, which will make peaceful co-existence possible in South Africa and holds the key to the achievement of that co-existence in this particular clause. The position in South Africa—and I think that hon. members, including the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. the Minister of the Interior, will agree—demands that, at this very time in our history and of constitutional development in South Africa, we should put party-political considerations second to the interests of the nation. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs and various other spokesmen have made the appeal here to hon. members to consider the effects and the ramifications both of the implementation and the rejection of this clause outside the party-political arena. In the first instance, I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point.

But your leader does not insist on it.

I should like to come back to what we spoke about in terms of the intent rather than specifically the wording of the amendment. I believe that it is important that tangible evidence must be given to the members of both the Black council and the President’s Council that, in determining the future of constitutional development in South Africa, the solution lies in their hands rather than its being the prerogative of the ruling party in this Parliament. I believe that the expression of that intent is of paramount importance, that we should convey to members of the other population groups, who will serve in the President’s Council and in the Black council, that they must be seen to be the significant influences in terms of the direction which constitutional change will take in South Africa. That is my appeal to the hon. the Minister where we are considering this particular clause and what was said by the hon. member for Durban Point. My appeal is that that message must be conveyed to the people outside this House. In the same spirit, I appeal to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to reconsider his stand, and that of his party, outside the arena of party-political gain.

That is a useless appeal.

I say that, because I believe that we are now standing at the cross-roads where the choice before us in this country, let alone in this House, lies along the road of talking, dialogue, conscensus, and joint decision-making, or the road of rejection, animosity, aggression, protest and, ultimately, confrontation. Only if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can get up here today and tell us that there is no iota of hope that the present clause, as it stands, will avoid confrontation, will he and his party possibly be justified in their stand not to accept this clause and not to participate in the President’s Council. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can say that there is not one iota of hope that it will not occur, his position will possibly be justified, but I think that every reasonable man and woman in this country, of whatever race group, will admit that the road to constitutional design lies in dialogue and discussion, however imperfect the initial shape of the vehicle may be. It is not the shape of the vehicle that counts, but it is the ideas and the exchange of ideas coming out of that vehicle which are of paramount importance.

It has got not wheels.

Most hon. members of the Opposition will agree that the ideal would be one council which would be representative of groups of all colours in terms of the legislation, and that this possibility has not been ruled out. I should like to put the following to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Is it not possible, no matter how remote the possibility, that out of this President’s Council, in conjunction with the Black Council, a recommendation could come for a national convention as envisaged by the official Opposition?

And then?

And then we can take it from there. [Interjections.] If consensus can be achieved between all race groups on a national convention as envisaged by the official Opposition, then let us have a look at it, but let us not exclude the possibility of exchanging ideas and finding consensus.

I would like to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who claims that neither he nor his party prescribes to other race groups, that by denying the Blacks of South Africa the right to make their own decisions regarding participation in the Black Council, the official Opposition are already doing what they say they do not do. They are denying the members of other population groups the right to decide for themselves whether the President’s Council and the Black Council should or should not be used as vehicles for dialogue. [Interjections.] In this respect I believe that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should reconsider the statement he made this morning that they do not prescribe to other race groups what they should and should not do.

Finally, in the last minutes at my disposal I would like to make an appeal to hon. members of the official Opposition to consider their position in constitutional design in South Africa and to reconsider the impact which they can have on the direction that constitutional design takes. And should they boycott—the word has been used—the council, in principle if not in practice, continue with the stand they have taken, then, as the hon. Minister of Transport Affairs said earlier today, if we as Whites are unable to decide upon the vehicle we should be using, I am afraid that the eleventh hour has ticked past and the contribution of the official Opposition will go down as a black mark against them in the history of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North has spent most of his ten minutes making appeals to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and PFP members to participate in the council to be formed. I would have thought that, as an MP in opposition who wants Blacks included in this council, he would have devoted his time to opposing the measure and telling the Government why they should include Blacks. But he has apparently already surrendered on this point. He is no longer arguing the case why Blacks should be included on the President’s Council, as was argued by his hon. leader and others on the commission, but is saying that because the Blacks will not be there we should rather deal with the post hoc situation. We believe that, if we take seriously the pleas which come, I think, from all sides of the House— from the hon. the Minister in charge of the legislation and the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs—even at this stage it is appropriate for us to ask the Government to reconsider this particular aspect. [Interjections.] I say this because we have opposed the measure throughout because we believed that the exclusion of Blacks in the first instance would be symbolic. It would be seen and has been seen as symbolic by Blacks and Whites in South Africa; secondly, that the President’s Council itself would be inadequate to deal with the negotiation process; thirdly, that the Blacks would see their exclusion as offensive—as they have done; fourthly, that as we understood it—and we based our views on speeches made by certain hon. Ministers in this House—the fact that Blacks should be excluded from bodies where Coloureds, Whites and Indians were included, reflected Government policy, that it was not an accident of fate or a mistake but a reflection of Government policy. Fifthly, that this body, excluding Blacks, will be a body to promote Government policy and Government constitutional structures. This has emerged.

There has been a diversion of the emphasis of certain hon. Ministers on that side of the House. We can come to no other conclusion than that the exclusion of Blacks from the President’s Council flows directly from Government policy as it is today and that it is in order to promote the Government’s constitutional philosophy in practice in South Africa. I am sorry the hon. the Prime Minister is not here. In the no-confidence debate in this House on 6 February this year, the hon. the Prime Minister was asked by the hon. member for Durban Point how far he would be prepared to go in negotiations, upon which he answered (Hansard, 6 February 1980, col. 246)—

The hon. the Prime Minister has said that he stands or falls by that 12-point plan. In anticipation of the findings of the Schlebusch Commission, he then said (col. 246)—

It is interesting that he said this four weeks before we received the draft of the report and recommendations which came from the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. However, then he went on to say (col. 246)—

The Government of the day and the hon. the Prime Minister do not see the President’s Council as the agency for a new constitution including all the peoples of South Africa. The hon. the Prime Minister has said in this House that he sees the President’s Council as an instrument for finding a solution in respect of the constitutional future for Coloureds, Indians and Whites. It is because the President’s Council is an extension of the philosophy, the policy and the constitutional thinking of the NP that we find it unacceptable. I do not believe that we are wrong on this. Let us look at South Africa today. I believe that everybody in this House has stressed the need for some kind of negotiation. Everybody is at one on this. It has been said that all people should be involved. If we take the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs seriously, this is “our last chance”.

I think that it is slightly arrogant and presumptuous for a Government to say that if one does not accept the machinery they offer, one has had one’s last chance. If we are confronted with a last-chance situation in South Africa, I appeal to the Government to behave accordingly. I want to say that, if the exclusion of Blacks is not due to Government policy and ideology but to an accident of history or a quirk of fate, there is a very easy remedy, and that is that the Black people should be allowed to serve on the President’s Council. The Government can then still, if it wishes, have its Black, Indian and Coloured councils. The simple remedy is to include Blacks in this council. The Government will say that we must accept that there will be a form of negotiation, but the fact is that the damage has been done. Whatever the situation was a month ago, it is not the situation any more. Let hon. members read what has happened as a result of this debate and in particular as a result of an attitude expressed by a member of the Cabinet. That is the fact. The fact is that, even if the hon. members on my left believed that this President’s Council with all its imperfections nevertheless offered the hope of some future worthwhile negotiation, that is not the position today. The fact is that, as we stand now at the end of the Committee Stage, the President’s Council has been rejected and condemned by every authoritative Black leader I know. [Interjections.] If the hon. the Minister can say that having Blacks on the President’s Council is not in conflict with their philosophy—and he should say that—and not even in conflict with their policy …

I will say what I think.

Then I believe one further thing has to be done and that is to allow Blacks to be nominated by the State President on this advisory council which will have no legislative authority. Let that be done, as evidence of the Government’s goodwill, as evidence of the Government’s bona fides that it genuinely wants to negotiate and as evidence of the Government’s desire to repair the damage which it has done to this measure. The hon. the Minister says it is as far as one can go. I do not believe that White people in South Africa are so timid that, if all four parties in this House combine and said: “For the sake of South Africa let us have some Black people together with Whites, Coloureds and Asians on a single body,” this will be rejected by the majority of White people in South Africa. The White people of South Africa are actually looking for a lead. They do not want party leaders and they do not want a Government that is afraid of their shadows. They do not want a Government where the pace of advance is determined by the most verkrampte members in its ranks, because outside of the verkrampte members of the governing party there are hundreds and thousands of White South Africans of all political beliefs who want to negotiate through a single negotiating body.

A few weeks ago the hon. the Prime Minister in the city hall of Cape Town spoke about a “Stateberaad”. That “Stateberaad” was interpreted by the whole media and South Africans as being a “beraad” which would include the representatives of the various groups in South Africa, and as such there was not a negative response to that, but a positive response.

In conclusion I want to say that we are as concerned as anybody else about getting negotiations off the ground. The Government is trying to do so through a piece of machinery which those in this party who served on the commission predicted would fail. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that it has failed. If the Government is serious about wanting negotiations to commence, I want to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to show a measure of statesmanship. [Interjections.] Can hon. members imagine the change in South Africa’s history if the hon. the Prime Minister entered this debate and said that out of the 60 people he would be prepared to nominate a few Black members? It would change the political climate in South Africa overnight. It would mean that it would be possible for the Opposition and the Government to cooperate. But much more important than that: It would mean that Black South Africans would be able to accept the Government’s bona fides, and Black South Africans, together with other South Africans, would for the first time in the history of South Africa become engaged in meaningful negotiation about our future.

Mr. Chairman, it is possible to summarize the arguments of hon. members of the official Opposition, in particular those of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Sea Point in a few simple sentences. In the first place they argue that the clause in the Bill concerning the institution of a President’s Council is unacceptable to them because this is ostensibly being done in terms of NP policy. They want such a body to be created in terms of PFP policy. It is cardinal in their entire argument that they expect the channel of change, the instrument which is being created to be created in accordance with the principles and political approach of the official Opposition. I do not begrudge hon. members of the official Opposition the freedom of arguing in this way, and I do so because this affects the fundamental differences between the official Opposition and the Government. Now, however, they have gone further and decided to boycott this proposed body politically. Therefore, as far as its approach is concerned, the party sitting on this side as the representative of the vast majority of South Africa’s White population must bend and yield to the approach of the official Opposition which is sitting there with 18 members of whom one is already on his way out. What is more, a few of them do not know whether they are going to vote for or adhere to that party’s standpoint.

I want to take this a little further. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made his appearance on the scene at a late stage. He was not even the first to take the lead; he is following the lead of pupils who have been boycotting schools during the past month. While this debate was in progress, hon. members—I think he did so, too—said we should look at what was happening outside.

The Government is prepared to make even drastic constitutional changes—the development over the past few years demonstrates that these are drastic changes and I shall point out an example in a moment— but must now call a halt and bend before the official Opposition, in spite of the fact that a considerable part of the wider Opposition says that this is an honest attempt to bring about real change in South Africa in a responsible way.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition must not flinch from the consequences of the decision he has taken. I am referring to the decision he took when the hon. member for Houghton seized him by the neck and said that he should grab the hon. member for Bezuidenhout by the neck and throw him out of the party. [Interjections.]

Order!

It could make a rather effective cartoon if one were to draw the three of them one behind the other, grasping each other by the neck.

And Helen wearing the trousers! [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me first refer to an example of what could happen if reasonable negotiation takes place. At a stage during the constitutional development of the Black people independent States were established. There were for example Bophuthatswana and Venda. On more than one occasion the President of Bophuthatswana—I hope I shall be allowed to refer to this example—said that he was not satisfied with the fragmented State we had given him. He said he did not find it easy to sell to his own people, there were many practical problems and the outside world looked down on him because he was the President of such a State; his country was unacceptable to them for those reasons. However, it did not end there in the sense that the Government told him that we were finished with him and were no longer looking after his interests. No, the negotiations continued. What is happening now? A radical and drastic change is now being made to the consolidation of Bophutha-tswana and quite a large White town and territory are being added to Bophuthatswana as a result of negotiation. White people are also being involved in this. New concepts and a new situation is developing as a result of negotiation.

I want to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that in this way and with the institution of a President’s Council one is creating the same kind of possibility as far as the constitutional development of South Africa is concerned—the indications were expressly given and the possibilities are there—for continuing the negotiations. Precisely because a considerable percentage of the Black people already have independent States and are, therefore, able to negotiate from a position of independence, the road has not been barred. The road has not been barred at all. That is why I say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that he has become the leader of a negative approach to the problems of South Africa. He will live to regret it. His party will also rue the day. History will record their mistakes for there is no doubt that they are missing one of the greatest opportunities in the constitutional development of South Africa. I listened to the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition. I do not want to be insulting, but I came to the conclusion that the man is stupid, but surely I cannot do so, for he was a professor. [Interjections.] This matter is of such importance, and so many possibilities with regard to constitutional development are embodied in this clause, not only for White South Africa, but also for greater South Africa, that hon. members, hon. members opposite as well—I want to say this in all modesty today—are not foreseeing all the possibilities. There I am in complete agreement with the hon. Leader of the NRP. One cannot try to see the whole road ahead before one is prepared to co-operate. One must at least see this step as an opportunity. Those of us who played a little rugby—and surely the hon. the Leader of the Opposition did, too—realize that although one does not know where the gap will take one, one takes it when one sees it.

But at least one should know where the try-line is.

I am surprised that the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition cannot take a gap when he sees one. That is why I advocate that we approach this matter with far-sightedness, enterprise and optimism and go on from here, and it would be a pity if the official Opposition were to remain behind on the road, in the company of people who want to boycott. We must approach the future of South Africa with far-sightedness, optimism and faith. I want to express the conviction that after this debate the NRP will at least be recorded as being reasonable people, people who are willing to make a contribution.

Mr. Chairman, having established and got on record the fact that, arising from a joint meeting of a committee of the President’s Council and the committee of a council of Black South Africans, there could be a recommendation to the President for a different composition of the President’s Council, including the introduction of members of the Black council, I have achieved my objective and so with the permission of the House I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment (2), with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that once I have said a few words I will be able to say “Amen” to the discussions on this clause. Actually I need only reply still to the remarks made by the hon. member for Durban North. Just to demonstrate how far this side of the House has gone to try to establish a fair dispensation, a fair mechanism for giving all parties a say, I want to point out that clause 25 of the draft legislation, which we published last year, stated very clearly that the President’s Council, which was introduced in terms of that draft legislation, may only consider and report on a matter of national importance at the request of the Council of Cabinets. In other words, in last year’s draft legislation we did also have a President’s Council with the narrow terms of reference which were stated in clause 25 of that legislation. In contrast to that we are now coming forward with the new proposed section 106 in accordance with which such a President’s Council, apart from the directions of the State President which it has to execute, may also advise the State President in its discretion. Surely this is a world of difference and a tremendous step forward. What is more, in the previous legislation to which I referred, there was no mention whatsoever of a Black council. Since we are now making provision for a Black council in the present legislation—of course the word “advice” is incorrect—which may have a say on a consultative basis, surely it is clear how far we have progressed. We have come a tremendously long way. We have come such a long way that the other two Opposition parties are prepared to co-operate, despite the differences that still exist between us.

I want to conclude by levelling a reproach at the hon. the Leader of the official Opposition. As I said during my Second Reading speech, I reiterate now that hon. members on this side of the House have truly contributed their share to getting White politics going. However, on this historical day the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has on his part taken an extremely unwise step by refusing to join in this.

Mr. Chairman, subsection (1) of this clause provides that the Bill shall, with the exception of certain specified sections, be brought into operation on 1 January 1981. However, if one has a look to see which sections do not come into operation on 1 January, its strikes one that no section of an essential nature, with the exception of those abolishing the Senate, comes into operation on 1 January 1981.

Subsection (2) provides that sections 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11(a), 17 and 34 will come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President. It provides further that different provisions of the said clauses may come into operation on different dates. I do not think it is wrong if I say that this modus operandi is rather eccentric, because it means that the Senate will in fact be abolished on the first day of next year, but that all the other provisions which will have an essential effect, will come into operation at some uncertain stage in the future, whether before or after the first day of next year. It will come into operation at a stage to be determined by the Government.

It could also be next week.

This means that the President’s Council will come into existence on an unspecified date, that the 12 unelected members of the House of Assembly will be appointed on an unspecified date, and that the post of the Vice State President will be established on an unspecified date.

But you do not want it, do you?

Inter alia, this will result in provision having to be made in a comprehensive way for the great diversity of situations which could arise if the clauses are brought into operation in a different sequence. For example, if a person from this House or the Senate were to be appointed to the President’s Council, or vice versa, provision would then have to be made for action to be taken in different sequences. We on this side of the House would now like to know why it is necessary to act in such an uncertain and haphazard way. I am calling it an uncertain and haphazard way because I think it is strange that such important clauses should be brought into operation at an uncertain stage. I really hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to clear up this matter for us. As this clause reads at present, it creates the impression that the Government is dealing with this legislation with a tremendous lack of confidence, that they are going to place this legislation on the Statute Book while the greatest measure of uncertainty exists as to the application of this measure and it is regarded with the greatest measure of uncertainty. As this clause now reads, it suggests that the Government is hoping for a favourable political climate in which to establish the President’s Council. That is why they are reserving the right to put this legislation into operation at what is for them the right stage to do so. Consequently they are hoping that circumstances in South Africa will develop in such a way that those leaders of the various groups in South Africa who are worth mentioning, will declare themselves prepared to serve on this council.

Are you opposed to that?

I really have no strong feelings either way. I simply think that it demonstrates certain aspects, which I should like to point out. Very recently the Government also created a new institution. Early this session they piloted a Bill through Parliament by means of which the CRC was abolished, and its place was to be taken by a nominated Coloured Council. During that debate hon. members on this side of the House, as they have also done during this debate, warned that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find people to serve on that council, people who would be worthy of the council, who would be able to make a material contribution and who would be truly representative of their group. Since then, we in this House and the general public have been given the assurance that “hundreds” of people had made themselves available and were interested in serving on the new Coloured Council. Subsequently the assurance was even given that the members of this Council would be announced at the beginning of April. To this day, we are still waiting for the members of the Coloured Council to be announced. I maintain that it is in fact as a result of this that we have this clause 37 before us today, in terms of which the Government will determine at what stage it will be the easiest for them to put the legislation into operation and to try out all these innovations.

The Government is probably keeping their options open so that they do not have to put this, or at least certain elements of it, into operation at all. I find it very interesting that the Government finds itself in this dilemma and that it is entering the future with such a measure of uncertainty. At this stage they already realize that, as happened with the new Coloured Council, this President’s Council in particular must also reply on its acceptability to other groups, and on what they think of it. The Government is so doubtful of its feasibility and acceptability that they have to adopt a pragmatic approach and draft the legislation in such way that they can put it into operation at any stage, when it suits them, and even, in certain cases in any event, keep the possibility open of not putting it into operation at all. I think the experience with the Coloured Council was probably a lesson to them, but one which the hon. members on the opposite side have not learned yet. One wonders what other possible explanation there can be for the fact that the establishment of this Council is being written into the legislation on such an uncertain basis.

Mr. Chairman, the question is whether the hon. member for Green Point should have made his little speech on this matter. The only reason why we are taking these powers of proclamation in clause 37 is to enable the Government to put a specific clause into operation when it is convenient for it and the people involved to do so. This is the prerogative of the Government, if clause 37 is passed, and I have nothing further to say about the matter.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 21, standing over, agreed to.

Clause 30, standing over, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Last year the Government accepted a recommendation of the Riekert Commission for provision to be made in one consolidated law for the rendering of employment provision services to workers and work-seekers of all population groups outside the Black States.

To implement this decision it is necessary in the first place to transfer the administration of existing legislation on the rendering of employment provision services to Blacks, which is at present the responsibility of the Department of Co-operation and Development, to the Department of Manpower Utilization. Subsequently the necessary steps will be taken to prepare the consolidated legislation as recommended by the Riekert Commission in consultation with the Department of Co-operation and Development and any other Government departments which may be involved. I have already appointed a standing technical committee on labour legislation for this purpose.

I should now like to explain the legislation which is before this House. At present the rendering of employment provision services to Blacks falls under the Department of Co-operation and Development in terms of the Black Labour Act, 1964. The actual administration of the Act, as far as the rendering of employment provision services is concerned, is undertaken by labour bureaux staffed by officials of the Administration Board who act as agents of the Department of Co-operation and Development.

The Bill provides that those functions of the Department of Co-operation and Development may now be transferred by the State President by way of proclamation to the Department of Manpower Utilization. The Administration Boards will, however, continue to manage and staff the labour bureaux, but they will fall under the control of the Department of Manpower Utilization.

No adjustment in the system of acquiring and distributing Black labour is being made at this stage and negotiations with Black States in this connection will continue under the auspices of the Department of Cooperation and Development, as recommended by the Riekert Commission.

I also wish to point out that the influx control mechanism which is at present the responsibility of the Department of Cooperation and Development will, despite the provisions of this Bill, continue to be dealt with by the Department of Co-operation and Development. All applications to import labour from one labour bureau area to another, or to transfer labour from one Administration Board’s area to another, will continue to remain a function of the Department of Co-operation and Development and its agents, who have first to be satisfied as to the availability and adequacy of housing for Black workers.

Mr. Speaker, briefly the legislation thus entails the transfer of the function of providing Blacks with employment from the Department of Co-operation and Development to the Department of Manpower Utilization.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading and indeed both the other stages of this Bill. As the hon. the Minister has outlined to the House, this Bill provides for a very simple transference from the Department of Cooperation and Development to his own department. We believe this makes considerable sense. Obviously it is in direct line with the recommendations made by the Wiehahn and the Riekert Commissions. Without any further ado we simply support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Pinelands who, on behalf of his party, pledged their support to this Bill. As the hon. member rightly said, it is a very short measure, but in many respects it ushers in the beginning of a new era in the regulation of Black labour relations. In terms of clause 1 of the Bill the President may, by way of proclamation, transfer the employment of Black labour which is being regulated in terms of legislation on Black labour, from the Department of Co-operation and Development to the Department of Manpower Utilization.

What I think we should make clear here is that only the employment and placing in employment of Black labour is being transferred to the Department of Manpower Utilization, but that the influx control measures will continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Co-operation and Development. As the hon. member rightly said, the Bill must be seen against the background of the recommendations in the Riekert Report. On the basis of one particular recommendation in the Riekert report it was concluded that the legislation on Black labour was very complicated and fragmented. Because this was the position, it was firstly recommended in the Riekert report that the legislation on Black labour be modernized and simplified; secondly it was recommended that Black labour relations should be rationalized. To achieve this it was necessary to start at a fixed point, and the fixed point as far as the rationalization of Black labour relations and also as far as the simplification and modernization of Black labour legislation is concerned, is in fact the measure which is at present before this House. This measure consequently transfers the labour matters which previously fell under the Department of Co-operation and Development to the Department of Manpower Utilization. This is indeed the beginning of a new era. We realize that Black labour is an economic factor, whether we want to admit it or not. Since the economy is now moving into a dynamic phase, we must realize that, as far as Black labour, too, is concerned, certain structural adjustments must be made, and these structural changes in the labour scene are a very delicate matter. In this connection there are relevant aspects concerning section 20 of the Black Labour Act, section 10 of the Blacks (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act and section 3 of the Environmental Planning Act. All these matters will, after the legislation on Black labour has been placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Manpower Utilization, be investigated by a technical commission and adjusted, subject to the retention of labour and industrial peace. I think this is truly an historic occasion in the organization of our legislation on Black labour and Black labour relations. Consequently we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP also welcomes this legislation. As the hon. member for Bellville has indicated, this is very possibly the beginning of a process of improvement in the planning and utilization of labour, with specific reference to Black employees. We are supporting this measure because we see it as giving expression to the recommendations of the Riekert Commission, and in particular we also look forward to the advent of the report of the technical committee which is investigating all aspects of Black employment.

I also believe as the hon. member for Bellville said that from little acorns big trees grow. In this respect we particularly recognize this fact, whereas previously the various Administration Boards acting on behalf of the Department of Co-operation and Development were probably seen more as controlling bodies and administrative bodies, rather than planning and development bodies. In the spirit of the Riekert Commission and the statements made by the hon. the Minister and his department on previous occasions, we find this to be a considerable change in emphasis from the bureaucratic control of labour to a process of planning, development and better utilization. In this respect we believe that flowing from the changes which will come about as a result of the change in the functions, the devolution of the functions from the Department of Co-operation and Development to the Department of Manpower Utilization, we can look forward to the expression of the hon. the Minister’s intent for better planning and utilization. We do, however, particularly take note of the fact that influx control is not as yet part of that devolution of power. The hon. the Minister will appreciate that our support for this Bill lies very much also in the hope that the problems of influx control will also ultimately receive the attention of the hon. the Minister’s department.

We find this a positive and constructive move, one which will be of considerable benefit not only to the employees who are going to be handled in this respect, but also to the total industrial and commercial scene who will benefit from this. Therefore we have great pleasure in supporting this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, all that remains for me to do is to thank the hon. members for their support of this Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

When amending legislation was passed last year, I said that I would effect further amendments if I found that there were shortcomings in the legislation. This has in fact happened. I should also have liked to introduce consolidated legislation this year, but, as hon. members know, the Wiehahn Commission has not yet finalized its work, and the portion of the report that deals more comprehensively with the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Black Labour Relations Regulation Act and the Wage Act have still to be finalized. It will therefore not be possible to introduce further legislation arising from this during this session. For that reason I have decided to proceed with the legislation that is now before the House. I now want to deal briefly with the most important amendments.

Clause 1:

As the Act reads at present, the industrial court will first have to determine on each occasion what an “unfair labour practice” is, before the parties to a dispute can proceed to try to resolve the dispute. If they cannot resolve the dispute, it will have to go to the industrial court again for a final decision. This might place the court in an unenviable position. Fortunately, there have not been any such cases since the legislation came into operation in October last year. A comprehensive definition is now being given and the Afrikaans version has also been changed to “onbillike arbeidspraktyk” because the word “onbehoorlike” gave rise to criticism.

Clauses 2, 3 and 4:

These clauses deal with the National Manpower Commission. Although the legislation of last year provides that the Chairman of the commission shall be a full-time member, provision is made for the other members to be appointed on the conditions and for the period determined by the Minister. Furthermore, provision is made for the Minister to appoint a member of the commission as deputy chairman. When the commission was established last year, the deputy chairman was also appointed in a full-time capacity, and the Act is now being amended in such a way as to give effect to this.

Furthermore, the Act provides for the setting up of committees to help the commission in its work, but no specific reference is made to an executive committee. An executive committee has already been appointed by the commission and specific provision is now being made for this in the Act.

Nor does the Act provide that the commission may subpoena witnesses and examine them, visit premises and have access to documents, or demand such documents when it carries out investigations or seeks to obtain information. The powers now being granted to the commission are similar to those of bodies such as the Wage Board, the Board of Trade and Industries, etc. that also have to carry out investigations. Such investigations are in fact analogous in this case, but they are not carried out.

Clause 5:

This clause deals with the industrial court. The legislation that was passed last year, provides for the appointment of a president and as many other members as the Minister may determine. Although the Minister may appoint one of the members of the court as deputy president, provision is now specifically being made for the court to consist of a president, a deputy president and other such members as the Minister may determine.

Last year’s legislation also provides that the president of the court shall have knowledge of general law as well as labour law. I have received a number of representations in this regard, particularly from the Association of Law Societies, which submitted that there were also people in general practice with many years’ experience in law, which of course includes labour law, and that it is not necessary to refer specifically to labour law. The amendment now being affected, refers only to a knowledge of the law, to therefore be all-embracing. The present legislation also provides for the establishment of local and special divisions of the industrial court. This seems to be superfluous and is now being abolished because a deputy president may now also be appointed.

Clause 6:

This clause deals with the establishment of conciliation boards, where disputes arise between employers and individual employees in regard to unfair labour practices. At present such an individual employee cannot make application for a conciliation board except when certain legal requirements have been complied with. The most important requirements are that the application has to be made by a registered trade union, of which he is a member, or if special circumstances exist. The proposed amendment now makes it possible for an individual employee to apply for a conciliation board himself in the case of a dispute regarding an infair labour practice.

Clause 7:

The legislation approved last year, provides that the Minister may only issue an order prohibiting employers from introducing unfair labour practices. Such practices can, however, also be forced on employers by employees. That is why provision is now being made for employees and trade unions also to be prevented from introducing unfair labour practices. Furthermore, provision is also being made for the order to remain in force until the industrial court has heard the case and made a decision on it.

Clause 8:

Provision was made in last year’s legislation for disputes on “unfair labour practices” that could not be settled within 30 days by industrial councils or conciliation boards, to be referred to the industrial court. In practice, it can of course happen that parties before industrial councils or conciliation boards may be convinced that they will not be in a position to settle the disputes within 30 days, if at all, and then come to light with all sorts of delaying actions. To obviate this and to ensure that the aggrieved party will have access to the industrial court as soon as possible, the Act is being amended so that the dispute is referred to the industrial court immediately the Minister has been advised that the dispute cannot be settled.

Clause 11:

This clause deals with the repeal of the Black Building Workers’ Act, 1951. As hon. members know, the Act prohibits Blacks from doing skilled work in the building industry in White areas. Furthermore, the Act prohibits Whites from doing skilled work in the building industry in Black areas, except that they may be used as instructors. I lifted these restrictions on 11 April this year and Blacks and Whites can now freely undertake skilled work in the building industry in White and Black areas. The Act therefore no longer serves any purpose and may be repealed. As far as the training of Blacks as building workers under the Act is concerned, there are only 53 pupils still in training with one administration board. Provision is now being made in the legislation to enable them to complete their training. We therefore consider this legislation as important for dealing with the present situation. The determination fixing their wage as well as those of qualified building workers in Black areas, also remains in force until 19 August 1980, when the determination expires.

As hon. members will note, the amendments are aimed chiefly at eliminating the deficiencies in last year’s legislation and facilitating the implementation of the Act. As far as the repeal of the Black Building Workers’ Act is concerned, all the indications are that the country is facing a serious shortage of building artisans which could seriously hamper economic development and the provision of housing if Blacks are not permitted to perform skilled building work in White areas.

I trust that the legislation will enjoy the support of hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Minister indicated right at the very beginning, we had hoped that there would have been even further legislation before the House during this session, but for the reasons that he has mentioned, this has not been possible. Perhaps the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading, will give us some indication of the progress that is being made by the Wiehahn Commission so that we will know when we could expect the final reports which we still await. I might add, in parenthesis, that we have only today received the Wiehahn report on training which was tabled today and for which we are most grateful, because we believe that this, too, is a very excellent and worthwhile piece of work. I think all of these have to be looked at together because, as the hon. the Minister will know better than anyone else, when one begins with a new dispensation in industrial relations one has to be very careful because, even though one may be implementing improvements, it is possible in breaking away from an old tradition to enter what I would call uncharted seas and find unexpected problems. I would say that one is going to have growing pains and difficulties, but they are worthwhile, because this country has got to grow. Let me say immediately that the official Opposition will be supporting this Bill, not only in the Second Reading, but in all its stages. I have certain amendments on the Order Paper, but I shall come to them at a later stage.

In essence this legislation does four things. In the first place it introduces a new definition of unfair labour practices. The Bill which has now become law and on which we spent a great deal of time during last year’s session of Parliament, defined unfair labour practices as “any labour practice which in the opinion of the industrial court is an unfair labour practice”. During the debate last year we argued from this side of the House that this definition was extremely vague, highly unsatisfactory and unworkable. Unfortunately hon. members on the other side of the House and the hon. the Minister as well overruled us, but there is a certain measure of satisfaction in it—and I am not going to make a big song and dance about it—that we have in a very short space of time made our point and the Government have now come back to this House in order to try to arrive at a more satisfactory definition.

Let me say immediately that in our view the present definition in law is too vague and unworkable, but that the new definition which we find in clause 1 goes too far and could very easily be misinterpreted and even abused. I believe that the definition of “unfair labour practice” which is now before us is so general as to be almost worthless. I say that advisedly because if hon. members will look at the definition on page 3 of the Bill, they will see that it includes amongst others in paragraph (a)(i)—

That includes grandmother, the kitchen stove and everything else, and whilst I can understand the logic behind this, whilst I can understand the attempt to now move away from a single brief definition so as to make it all-embracing, I think there are other problems, because there are those who will then begin to use the definition to serve their own ends and not to serve the ends of industrial peace. That is what we have to ask ourselves about this particular definition.

We have a further part to this definition—

We all know that there are many and wide changes taking place on the South African labour scene. There are many labour practices, in particular, which are changing almost every day and certainly every month and every year. If the change in labour practice has any effect on anyone at all, even the moral position, the, according to this definition, the affected people would have a case and could complain to the industrial court because of an unfair labour practice. I believe that the hon. the Minister, in introducing this particular definition, is actually making a rod for his own back because he is going to have very real problems. The industrial court, in particular, is going to have very real problems in this regard.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper. I recognize the problems of finding a satisfactory definition; I do not think it is easy to find a perfect one, but I shall develop that a little more when we come to the Committee Stage.

The one point I want to make here is that we must ensure at all costs that this definition of “unfair labour practice” does not leave a loophole for a new form of job reservation. I say that because those who have sought to respond to the Government’s very enlightened changes in the labour field and to defend the Government against certain right-wing elements, have sometimes used the argument of the industrial court being in place. Therefore, people need not worry; if there are any significant changes made, do not worry about them, because there is an industrial court and they can take their case there.

The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark in the debate last year, when he had to accept the fact that job reservation was being scrapped—I must say he did it very graciously and he even at the time gave us a side swipe—went on to say (Hansard, 1979, col. 8054)—

I believe that that could be a direct reference to the maintenance of some area of job reservation, particularly if one bears in mind that the definition includes the words “a change in labour practice”. I believe this would be a very weak argument and therefore I believe the definition is unsatisfactory. However, I shall come back to this in the Committee Stage.

The second thing which the Bill does is that it expands the powers of the National Manpower Commission. I want to say in one simple sentence—and I wish I had more time—that the work already produced by the National Manpower Commission is an indication of how necessary this body is, and I should like to pay tribute to them for the work that they have done already. In principle, therefore, I have no objection to the National Manpower Commission receiving further powers. We believe that this is an important body which has done, and will continue to do, valuable work. In my judgment it is primarily a research body and for that reason I believe that the new powers granted to it in this legislation in one instance go too far. I shall accordingly move an amendment in the Committee Stage which will have the effect of not extending the powers of the commission to include entering premises without notice. I do not believe that they need this power. The Registrar already has that power, there are other people who can do this, and I do not believe that we need to extend that power to a Manpower Commission.

Last year, when the hon. the Minister was talking about the establishing of the Manpower Commission, he really agreed with me when he said—and I quote from Hansard, 7 June 1979, col. 8028—

And he added, somewhat prophetically—

Well, we have seen something of the economic revival already.

A very good prophet.

That is right. He was a very good prophet on this occasion. This means that the work of the Manpower Commission will of course be accelerated. We must bear in mind, however, that the Manpower Commission should always be seen as a servant of the Department of Manpower Utilization, and never as its master. For that reason, I believe that it is important to make quite sure that there is no overlapping, so that one does not have the Manpower Commission doing one thing, the Wiehahn Commission doing another, and the Department of Manpower Utilization doing something else. I do not believe that that is desirable. I have one last comment on the Manpower Commission. Because it is so important, I believe that it could become even more representative, and should become more representative than it is. As far as I know, and I am open to correction, there is one Black trade union member amongst the 41 members. I believe that this is an area which could be improved on.

This Bill also expands the powers of the industrial court, and the hon. the Minister has dealt with this in some detail. Clause 5 provides for a full-time deputy president for the court and for other full-time members, if necessary. I think that it is rather interesting to notice the way in which this is stated, because, in my judgment, it simply means that there is not going to be any necessity to extend the members beyond those two. The clause also adjusts the decision-making processes of the court in the fight of these additions. This Bill also confers the same investigative powers on the court as are enjoyed both by the industrial registrar and the hon. the Minister in terms of various sections of the Act.

The effect of clause 6 is to exclude alleged unfair labour practices from the jurisdiction of conciliation boards.

Clause 7 includes the industrial court in the process of reinstatement, a process which is at present confined to the hon. the Minister alone. I believe that that is important.

Clause 8 makes provision for various powers for enforcing decisions and determinations made by the industrial court by extending existing sanctions presently attaching to decisions of the industrial tribunal. The last effect of this legislation is the repeal of the Black Building Workers Act, 1951, and its various amending statutes. I am referring now of course to clause 11. Of course, what we have here is that the hon. the Minister is putting into law something which has already taken place. As I have said on other occasions, and I shall go on saying it whenever the hon. the Minister or any other hon. Minister takes a similar action, I extend to him our congratulations. We believe that this is a very enlightened and necessary step. I do not want to deal exhaustively with this, but when one remembers the terms of the Act which we are repealing, it is certainly to be welcomed. Let me quote only from section 15(1) of Act No. 27 of 1951 to illustrate—

1. (a) No person shall in an urban area, elsewhere than in a Black area, employ any Black on skilled work.
2. (b) No Black shall, whether as an employee or in any other capacity, perform any skilled work in an urban area, elsewhere than in a Black area, unless such work is performed in connection with a building or premises owned by him and occupied or intended for occupation by himself and his dependants.

So it goes on. It was very, very restrictive indeed, and against the background of the shortage of skilled workers in South Africa and a growing and thriving economy this clause makes very good sense indeed. On that note we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, one is grateful that the hon. official Opposition are supporting this amendment Bill. Before I come to the Bill itself, I should first just like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation towards one of the officials of the department on behalf of the Manpower Utilization study group of this side of the House, viz. Mr. Nic Hechter, who has attended the parliamentary sessions for the past 21 years, where we have had the privilege—myself as chairman of this study group and previously as secretary—of benefiting from his extensive knowledge. I should like to say thank you very, very much to him on behalf of this side of the House for the courteous and friendly way in which he always received us and for his willingness to provide us with information when we came to see him. Since he is soon going to accept his new position as regional inspector here in the Western Cape, we also want to wish him everything of the best. We wish him and his family everything of the best for the future. He has a good grounding in his subject and I am sure that he is going to make a tremendous success of this position that has now been offered to him.

As the hon. the Minister correctly said, we expected that we might be able to consolidate the Industrial Conciliation Act this year, but since the reports of the Wiehahn Commission have not all been tabled yet—I see the second report has been tabled today—it is the right time for us simply to make the necessary changes in order to rectify the shortcomings that have become evident in the Act as it was accepted by this House last year. It is also important that if we know that there are shortcomings, there should be no delay in making the necessary changes.

If we then look at clause 1, which basically concerns the definitions, to which the hon. member for Pinelands referred to, I think it is a good thing—now that we have a definition of the Industrial Court—that all departments and special departments of the court should be abolished. In the second place, in the Afrikaans text, the definition of “onbehoorlike arbeidspraktyk” is being altered to “onbillike arbeidspraktyk”, which I think is better terminology. The hon. member for Pinelands said that the definition was too wide last year, and perhaps, as it is being moved here by the hon. Minister, it is still too wide. I differ somewhat from the hon. member. I noted that he also suggested certain amendments to the definition of the word here, but he may perhaps be rather presumptuous in doing so since I think it would be fitting, if we want to define this properly, first to see what the Wiehahn Commission recommends on certain aspects of our legislation. I do not think it is necessary to argue about the definition in this Second Reading. I endorse what the hon. member said here, because I think it is absolutely essential for there to be a definition of an unfair labour practice in our conciliation legislation because, regardless of race or colour, we are still dealing with unscrupulous employers. There may be only a few, but one does find them. That is why I think it is so essential for us to grant this protection to any employee, regardless of race or colour. However, I shall come back to this when we discuss clause 6.

To my mind, clauses 2, 3 and 4 are basically aimed at streamlining the functioning of the National Manpower Commission. This commission has just been appointed last year. However, we have already realized that there are certain problems. A deputy chairman of the commission was appointed. In order to enforce this appointment as well as the appointment of other members, the necessary amendment is being made.

As regards the functioning of the National Manpower Commission, I think it is important for these amendments to be made in order to streamline the duties and functions of the commission. Now that I am on the subject of the duties, I want to say that we may have to grant more extensive powers to this National Manpower Commission in future so that they can have more freedom of movement, perhaps even beyond the sphere of the Public Service. In the future, the National Manpower Commission may be able to think of undertaking proper investigations into co-operation with our universities or agencies. We must not force them to begin those investigations themselves. They still remain responsible for providing the hon. the Minister with advice in regard to labour legislation.

I think it is important that the National Manpower Commission should also be given certain powers to be able to issue subpoenas and carry out inspections. The hon. member for Pinelands is not quite happy about the fact that the people are being given the right to enter certain premises. We can discuss this further during the Committee Stage. However, I think that in view of the fact that it is the duty of the National Manpower Commission to carry out investigations and make recommendations to the hon. the Minister, one should not restrict the powers of the Manpower Commission or clip its wings so that it cannot move freely in order to carry out the necessary investigations and then make the necessary recommendations to the hon. the Minister.

As far as the Industrial Court is concerned, I also think that the amendment that he moved here with regard to the appointment of a deputy president is unacceptable. I think it is right that a deputy president is going to be appointed, because I think that the court will function very much better with a president and a deputy president than it will function with the assistance of subsections and special sections.

I now want to deal with clause 6 which, to my mind, is the most important clause and in my opinion, is important to every worker in this country. I think that this amendment undoubtedly makes it very clear that the individual employee, regardless of race or colour, will have the right, when a dispute as defined in the definition of an unfair labour practice arises, to make application to the Minister for the implementation of the re-conciliatory machinery for which the Act provides. As the Act reads at present, it is still an open question whether it could happen or not. I think that it is being stated beyond any doubt in this provision. It is extremely important because there are people in this country who are influencing people to do certain things in this country. There are also people who are making employers and employees afraid.

In this regard I am referring specifically to some of our trade unions who tell employees that the abolition of section 77 is a threat to them in the sense that they can be forced out of their job as a result. If it should be necessary that in such cases unfair action should be taken against any employee, I feel that that employee should at least have the right to apply as an individual in terms of this provision to the Minister so that the conciliation machinery can be set in motion, and that such a case, if a solution cannot be found, will be referred to an industrial court that can then make a final decision. I think it is very fair and every employee in this country will be glad to welcome this amendment in clause 6.

As far as clauses 7 and 8 are concerned, it is also important to note that if problems should arise as a result of employees, trade unions or workers’ organizations introducing an unfair trade practice, the Minister can make an order. Therefore, he will be able to do this when employees or trade unions are responsible for the introduction of an unfair trade practice and not only when employers are responsible therefore.

I think clause 8 is just as important because it provides that if a dispute should arise, and it is very clear that conciliation must take place because the two parties cannot resolve their dispute, a period is prescribed for the resolution, because failing that, delaying tactics can be applied which are not to the benefit of the employer, the employee or the country. Therefore I think it is also a very great improvement by means of which delays of this sort can be eliminated in the future.

Clause 11 of the Bill is also welcomed, especially since we have such a tremendous industrial growth in South Africa. There is tremendous growth in the building industry, and it is very clear that the Whites and the Coloureds no longer have a special interest in the building industry. They have shown an interest over the years, but this traditional work in the building industry has now passed from the one population group to the other. I think this is a good amendment that is being moved here. It has become very clear over the past years that this problem is on the increase. In 1975 the former Minister of Labour granted exemption to Blacks to practise certain trades because even then it was clear that there were not enough skilled people available. The apprentice intake shows that there were 1 579 apprentices in the building industry in 1975, but by 1979 the number of apprentices had dropped to a mere 473. That is why I think it is in the interest of the development of our father-land that the laws scheduled in clause 11, are now repealed.

It is a privilege for me to support the amendments envisaged by this legislation on behalf of this side of the House, because it cannot but streamline the implementation of our industrial legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP were delighted when the first report of the Wiehahn Commission was tabled during last year’s session of Parliament and that certain legislation flowed from it, which made it possible to introduce what the hon. the Minister and other hon. members have called a new era in industrial relations. That was certainly very welcome indeed and as a consequence of that we find that certain further structural, administrative and technical alterations which are necessary are incorporated in the Bill before the House.

I want to deal very briefly with a few points which were dealt with by other hon. members as well, because I think they are extremely important and are in fact the main pillars of the amending legislation. We shall obviously be coming back to certain of these aspects as well during the course of the Committee Stage, but I think it is important to motivate the reasons why we shall be supporting this Bill at Second Reading.

The question of an unfair labour practice is one which I want to predict to the hon. the Minister will be with us for quite some considerable time. I agree with the hon. member for Pinelands that the vagueness or open-endedness of the definition in the principal Act obviously lent itself to certain practical difficulties in interpretation. Any definition which is open-ended, lacks specific parameters and if left to the discretion of even highly trained or qualified people, will encounter problems in practice, because of the ingenuity of people involved in this particular kind of activity.

The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Pinelands we shall certainly discuss during the Committee Stage. Here also, I think the hon. member for Pinelands will find, as he himself admitted, that it is very difficult indeed to try to legislate for all eventualities in unfair labour practices. If there is certainly one field which is never lacking in exploiters and experts it is certainly the field of unfair labour practices. I do believe, however, that we must have a look at that during the Committee Stage. We can then test the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands against the proposal in this particular Bill.

Furthermore we believe that the effect on the industrial court of the appointment of additional members, in particular the deputy, will only bring about an improvement. Whether the centralization of the function to Pretoria is going to be as effective in practice as the originally proposed decentralized court is something which also remains to be seen. Only practice will prove whether this is going to be beneficial.

If we have a look at the other clauses contained in this Bill, I am sure hon. members will agree that some of the most venemous criticism against the Bill introduced last year will to some extent be removed by certain of these clauses. I refer specifically to the difficulty which individuals had in applying for access to a conciliation board. In terms of one of the clauses contained in this Bill this will now, of course, become possible. I am aware of the fact that critics of the Industrial Conciliation Act, as amended last year, and of this Bill, will still persist in saying that the industrial court is closed to the individual. There is indeed a great measure of truth in that statement that the individual does not have direct access to the industrial court. I do think, however, that critics of this must appreciate the fact that if the doors of the industrial court were simply opened to the individual, it would probably be impossible in practice for that court to function effectively. The removal, however, of the prerequisite that only trade unions could apply for conciliation boards and that the individual can now motivate that conciliation board, I believe, is a very considerable improvement, and will to a large extent blunt the criticism of certain radicals in the country who have always maintained that this legislation does not provide adequate protection for the individual.

A further improvement which we welcome, relates to the 30-day period. As the hon. the Minister mentioned in his Second Reading speech, the prerequisite of a 30-day period is now being waived. This will, I believe, be found in practice to be quite a considerable improvement, because I know that in certain instances there were not only delay tactics employed, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark mentioned, but it also actually led to strike actions in certain circumstances. Therefore I believe this is a very considerable improvement that that 30-day period has now been removed. I should also like to refer specifically to the one very, very important aspect of this Bill.

I believe hon. members will appreciate the significance of this. I refer now specifically to clause 11, which provides for the scrapping of the Black Building Workers’ Act. This we certainly welcome. When the hon. the Minister indicated, during April this year, that he was going to abolish this, we welcomed it. Therefore we are now obviously welcoming the legislation which makes this possible on a legal basis.

I should particularly like to point out the benefits of scrapping the Black Building Workers Act. It is a good thing, not only in terms of the reasons given by the hon. the Minister, namely the shortage of building workers, the retarding of building programmes and the consequent adverse effect of that on the availability of accommodation, but I believe it is also going to be of more profound and significant importance for the whole of South Africa and for all members of all race groups in that it will have a momentous bearing on the cost reduction factor. Hon. members, and the hon. the Minister himself, can probably remember the days when, if one went on to a building site, one found there two or three people employed at the highest vantage points to watch out for the building inspector. When the building inspector arrived on the scene he would, for instance, find there a Black man painting with a broom because it was illegal for him to use a paint brush, or another Black man plastering with a piece of wood because it was illegal for him to use a steel trowel. When one thinks back to those days one can appreciate the amount of inbuilt costs to a system in which building contractors had to develop an infrastructure containing an early-warning system against the arrival on site of building inspectors. The whole thing, in fact, became quite laughable, quite ludicrous. Not only was there this hanky-panky of Blacks painting with brooms, but the contractor also had to employ, as a safeguard, a White builder, or a Coloured builder in Natal, in certain circumstances, to be available in case the inspector came. I think we will now be able to get rid of all that unnecessary discomfort in the building industry, but in addition to that I believe that by providing Blacks with job opportunities in the building industry, in professions for which they have a lot of basic talent and aptitude, we will be introducing a definite stabilizing factor into industrial relations in South Africa. There can be nothing more frustrating for an unemployed Black walking down the street than to approach a building site, ask for work and be refused purely on the basis of the colour of his skin. I think that frustrating factor will now be eliminated in terms of the provisions of clause 11.

Further, I think that the provisions of the amending Bill are generally acceptable to our party. I should like to welcome them and, in doing so, to congratulate the Manpower Commission on the very sterling work it has done to date. We look forward, with great anticipation, to further reports from the Manpower Commission, including recommendations in terms of changes to our legislation. We in this party have no difficulty in supporting the Second Reading, but would like to advise the hon. the Minister that we shall, during the Committee Stage, be taking a very close look at the definition of “unfair labour practice”, not from a party-political point of view, but to see whether it is possible to find a definition that can serve the practical purposes for which it is designed.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself briefly with what was said by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark who paid tribute to Mr. Hechter. All I can say is that I have a great deal of appreciation for the service that he rendered, and I say this with reference to the few years that I dealt with him. I have a great deal of appreciation for the quality of the assistance that he gave to us.

I do not have much about which to cross swords with the previous speaker. There are a few things to which I shall refer later on in my speech. In general he supported the legislation, and of course we welcome this.

Labour is most probably the most important single determinant of socio-economic development. In the production process one actually has a tripartite relationship between the labourer, employer or employee and the State, which actually has to serve as a catalyst in regulating relations between the other two parties. In South Africa we have leaned heavily on the old British philosophy, in actual fact the trade union philosophy of Britain, that the boss is the enemy of the employee. Therefore it is probably a good thing that the State has to serve as a catalyst and actually has to take the initiative when it comes to the development of the philosophy for regulating relations on the labour level.

We are dealing here with an hon. the Minister and a department that has given the labour level in South Africa a completely new philosophy with a different dimension, a philosophy which says that the employer is primarily responsible for the maintenance of labour rest and peace on the factory floor, and this is very important, because it is much more meaningful that it should rather be done in this way than that the department should inspect the tremendous conglomerate of thousands upon thousands of factories throughout the whole of South Africa, and ensure good relations. That is why it is meaningful, because as the old saying goes: Where no one complains, there are no laws. It is a good thing that people can complain when they have problems and that the mechanism for complaining is being created for them, as well as the mechanism for processing the complaints and solving their problems. I say to the hon. the Minister that we have a great deal of appreciation for his new approach. I think it is opening completely new vistas in South Africa with regard to labour relations and practices.

I know it is not a very popular thing to make long speeches at this stage of the session. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, I want to say that due to its very complex composition, there are probably greater possibilities and levels for friction in South Africa than in most other countries in the world. Therefore, we are very much in need of legislation of this nature; perhaps more so than elsewhere.

The definition of an unfair trade practice has been discussed. It is true that, from the very outset, the Government was aiming at the principle of meaningful protection of workers and not preferential treatment. I have just said that we have a complex composition. We have a problem the nature of which is not to be found anywhere else in the world. We have no textbook information or guidelines from history. Therefore I think that the Opposition should be satisfied that we are accepting this wide definition to begin with and that we are first waiting to see where things will lead in order to establish whether it is necessary or not. I think they know the Government as an intelligent Government and if problems should arise later on, the Government will make the necessary changes. I think they can have that confidence in the Government.

I do not want to refer to ail the provisions of the Bill, but criticism has also been expressed concerning the Manpower Commission and its composition. It is simply a case of its being a body that should have been established long ago. One can practically say that time has run out for it. There has never been proper co-ordination of research into labour practice, problematics and law in South Africa. It is necessary to do so now. If we do not give this body all the powers that it needs, we will emasculate it. We are already late and therefore we cannot short-circuit the commission any longer. It must have all the powers that it should. It must be in a position to subpoena witnesses to testify before it. The commission must also have the power to visit premises and undertakings without prior notice. I think this is particularly essential, otherwise the malpractices that do exist are always put right.

As far as the composition of the commission is concerned, there has been criticism because it is not varied enough for the liking of the hon. member for Pinelands. Of course it is not strange to hear such an argument from him. However, I want to point out to him that the members of the commission are not appointed on a permanent basis. The members of the commission alternate and as time passes and the need becomes greater, the hon. member can accept that more people of colour will in fact be appointed on the commission. As far as this is concerned, let us give the commission a chance. We are at the start of a new experiment and to my mind it is quite correct for us not to accept unnecessary restrictions of powers.

I actually want to conclude my argument with this. I have already said that it is not popular to talk for a long time at this stage. I think the changes that are now being made by means of the Bill, are meaningful, practical and far-sighted. Therefore I support it.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the first instance to thank hon. members who participated in the debate in support of the legislation. I want to remark that I noticed that the hon. members spoke about the legislation with true insight. One is very grateful for this. I think the legislation is important enough to receive the attention that it has been afforded in recent times.

I want to associate myself with the hon. members for Vanderbijlpark and Sasolburg who expressed their appreciation towards Mr. Nic Hechter, a very well-known, valued official who will probably be making his last appearance in the official’s benches this year. Mr. Hechter came to the Cape years ago. He performed his task here in the department with a great deal of distinction. In particular, he gave advice on laws and the interpretation thereof as well as on the workings of the department. I can well understand that hon. members noticed this and express their great appreciation towards him. For my part, it was a great privilege to deal with him over the past number of years and to be able to have him here. He meant a great deal to me personally, particularly in recent times when we submitted legislation. I want to wish him everything of the best in the future and tell him that he has our great appreciation, as he has noticed, for the services that he rendered to the House.

I am aware of the fact that because there are two amendments on the Order Paper, two subjects will once again be discussed during the Committee Stage. Therefore, I shall not go into this in detail now during the course of my reply. The one concerns the definition that the hon. member for Pinelands discussed and the other one concerns the Wiehahn Commission and more specifically, clause 4. The question was put to me, and I should just like to reply to it on this occasion: How far are we with the report of the Wiehahn Commission? The fact is that we received part of the report last year, and following that I submitted legislation. This legislation is still emanating from it. This year we received the second part of the report and it was tabled today. I want to add at once that we had a great deal of trouble in dealing with this report in the short time after it reached me in typed form, in order to table it today. But I am pleased that it could happen before the House adjourned. I have already received the third and fourth sections, but I have not yet had an opportunity to look at them. These will also be processed in due course and I shall decide whether we should keep it until next year or ask the State President if we could circulate it to hon. members in the meantime. Probably the latter will happen. I hope, and the chairman has told me that he also hopes, to hand in the remaining portions of the report within a month or two. Therefore, when we meet once again, we will probably have it at our disposal and probably also be in a position to submit consolidating legislation to the House, which I am looking forward to.

I want to repeat what I told the House when we submitted legislation for the first time with reference to the Wiehahn Commission. At the time I said that we were breaking new ground. I said that particularly with the definition of “onbehoorlike arbeidspraktyk”, now “onbillike arbeidspraktyk”, we were breaking new ground. I said that I found the definition vague and that I was convinced that we would have to come back to it because, since one is breaking new ground, one does not always know whether one is looking deeply enough at things and including everything that is necessary in a definition. A definition is an awkward thing. One can be as clever as one wishes, but there is always someone who sees it from another angle and sees even more deficiencies. That is why I predicted that we would have to come back and rewrite it from time to time. However, the aim was to lay down a definition for the people dealing with it, the employers and the employees of the country, so that they can be satisfied and can know that there is such a thing as an “onbehoorlike arbeidspraktyk”, an “onbillike arbeidspraktyk”, and there will be a court that could interpret it for them. It was with this good intention that we tried to create a definition.

Then I also want to refer to the Manpower Commission. The hon. member for Pinelands referred to the speedy appearance of the first report of the National Manpower Commission and to the work that they do. I want to react to that at once. The hon. member was concerned that the commission, which is to be an advisory body, would obtain powers that would give it a form of control as time goes by; in other words, he is afraid that it could develop into a machine that could develop further than was in tended. No, I do not think this is the case. As we predicted, the commission is a very important one. It must advise, and if it must advise, surely it cannot do so if one does not give it machinery that it can use in exercising its advisory function, and this is what we are trying to do. The commission has an investigatory function with a view to advice, not an investigatory function with a view to prosecution. If the function of the commission had been to prosecute, we would have been able to say that there was reason to be afraid. Then even I would have thought that we should be careful. However, the commission has only investigatory and advisory terms of reference. As long as its terms of reference are investigatory and advisory, I shall have to protect the commission and give it the machinery to do so. This is exactly what we are doing here. I must say that I cannot appoint a commission and then expect from it what I expect from the National Manpower Commission, and if I do not put that commission in a position to perform its work efficiently. There are other cases too. For instance, there is the Wage Board and other boards that must also be able to summons people to appear before them during an investigation on occasion, or also have to obtain permission to look at a place. This type of thing is in fact being done. Therefore, it is not as if this commission is now doing something that is not also being done by other commissions. This commission is doing what is already being done by other commissions. We would not expect any of the other commissions of going further in the exercise of their duties than this House intended when it granted those duties to them.

I therefore want to give the House the satisfaction and the peace of mind that this is not the objective. That is why the Government, the House, the Minister and the department are there to come back, if things go wrong, and to say that the matter is now going wrong and that we must rectify it. However, I have full confidence in the commission. I have particular confidence in the way in which it has now been composed, and I want to tell the hon. member at once that I also have full confidence in those who serve on it, from the president down. It is a commission that is making progress in carrying out its duties. The commission has really been drawn up in a knowledgeable, balanced way, and as far as other racial groups are concerned, it has also been drawn up in a very representative fashion. It is not as if only one Black person is serving on the commission. There are in fact four. There is a representative of the trade unions, but there are three other Black representatives too. As far as I am concerned, I want to say that the commission is representative of the large groups of workers in South Africa.

On this occasion I also want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Durban North, which was a good contribution. I want to thank him for it. He raised a point that I should just like to take further, viz. the question of the building industry. The hon. member referred to what is happening. Of course it was decided, by those of us who dealt with it, that the building industry was going through a very critical stage. According to the new projections, building activities will increase from R2,8 billion last year to R3,8 billion this year and probably to R4,8 billion next year. How can there be an increase to the value of R1 000 million if the number of people doing the building work, are decreasing? We are therefore in a situation where we will simply not have the people to carry out these projects. Furthermore, as a result of the delay in the building programme, there is going to be a type of demand for houses that will result in the price of houses not increasing because the building costs are increasing, but because people do not have houses. I want to tell the House that if one reaches the stage which Europe is experiencing at the moment, that there are no houses to live in, and houses are five times more expensive than their intrinsic value, our children will not have houses to live in one of these days because they will not be able to afford them. This is the big fear. That is why we had to throw open the industry, so that there could be building in South Africa. In the nature of things, there are many industries in this country in which the labour complement is shifting. Whereas people may have been the workers in a specific industry at a particular stage, they are shifted out within a few years as a result of economic development. Here I want to mention the example of the clothing industry. 25 years ago more than 60% of the workers in the clothing industry were Whites. Do hon. members know that less than 2% are Whites today? In other words, if one did not make provision for others to do this work, not one of us here would have been able to wear a pair of pants or a jacket that had been made in South Africa. All the clothes would have been imported. Therefore one must realize that one has a developing and shifting economy. That is why it was essential to be realistic. I associate myself with this and avail myself of the opportunity to say that it was essential to allow the building industry to be manned by those people who were available for building. There are many evils that emanate from this. I do not want to point a finger, but I want to tell hon. members that it will be very interesting to see how many bricks are being laid per month in South Africa today. I do not want to say how many. Simply go and ask. I shall say what it was. There was a time—I still remember it—when a bricklayer said that he would not be employed if he could not lay 2 000 bricks per day. Go and ask how much it is today. Ask if it is the half of that today. Beware that one does not reach a stage where one finds that not even a fifth of that is being laid. This is the type of thing that pushes costs up and this is where one must be realistic.

It is therefore very essential to place this legislation on the Statute Book today and that we should introduce realism as soon as possible. For the reasons that I have cited, it was essential for us to move quickly. It is interesting that, before this legislation appeared, as a result of the enormous pressure—from members who are in this House today who begged and pleaded me because projects were coming to a standstill—I granted exemption for the meanwhile. To date I am receiving nothing but praise from all sides, even from the ceilings, for the relief that was granted. Therefore, if anyone could think that there could be criticism as a result of this legislation, I can say that I have not yet received it. I have received nothing but thanks, particularly that the economy is on the move again.

I thank hon. members for their remarks and for their support of the Second Reading and I hope that hon. members will not delay the House very long with the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move my amendment which appears on page 282 of the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (i) those recognized by law as sufficient to justify summary dismissal; or
2. (ii) those related to the capability of an employee to perform work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to perform; or
3. (iii) the reason of redundancy;

1. (i) disrupting or affecting unfairly the business of an employer or class of employers; or
2. (ii) creating or promoting labour unrest; or
3. (iii) detrimentally affecting the relationship between employer and employee,

As I indicated in my Second Reading speech, we have here a much more detailed definition of an “unfair labour practice”. My problem at the moment is that despite the difficulty of finding a definition which will meet all cases, the present one has certain major disadvantages. I refer to the proposed definition in paragraph (a)(i) in clause 1(c)—

Immediately a new labour practice is introduced. It may be that in the minds of some people this will have an effect on their moral or social welfare, and if that is going to be included as part of the definition, I think it is going to limit the change in labour practice which we all know are absolutely necessary. We do not always have to go to law in order to make the changes. For example, I ask what happens if a decision is taken by an industrial council regarding a labour practice. Will they be excluded? If they should decide that they are going to change a certain approach to the facilities offered to workers, or to the training, the promotion, the direction or the overseeing of workers, what is going to happen as regards the industrial court in line with this definition? If a custom is changed in regard to the employment of different groups of people as traffic policemen, firemen, or ambulance men, are we going to find that, if others who do not like that or who might have difficulty with this change on moral grounds take it to the industrial court, then in terms of this definition their objection must be upheld?

I want to make it absolutely clear that I do not doubt for a moment the bona fides of the hon. the Minister, the Director-General, the department, the Manpower Commission, the Wiehahn Commission and the president and the deputy president of the court. I believe that they have got the message and that they are moving forward, and we encourage that. However, in a court one has to go by the law, not by the intention or the goodwill of the people who administer it. I think we need to strengthen the hand of the president of the industrial court. This court is going to be very powerful. It seems to me as if it is only going to comprise two people. I think that, with the changes which may still have to come in South Africa, we must make it as easy as possible for both employer and employee. On the one hand we must not allow employers to practice reverse discrimination, against which there must be some protection, and on the other hand we must not allow the feeling amongst workers to continue that the customs, the traditions and even the laws of the past are going to guarantee their positions and their employment. For that reason I have tried to work out a definition, namely the definition which is contained in the amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper. I am not going to dwell on this at great length. I think my amendment speaks for itself and I do not intend reading it all out. I just want to underline that in my amendment to substitute a new definition of “unfair labour practice” I have made provision for all but the following reasons to be excluded—

1. (i) Those recognized by law as sufficient to justify summary dismissal; or
2. (ii) those related to the capability of an employee to perform work of the kind which he was employed by the employer to perform; or
3. (iii) the reason of redundancy.

I also want to correct a typographical error. Paragraph (b)(iii) of my amendment reads as follows—

I should like the words “as a consequence of” to appear on a separate line. In other words, the words “as a consequence of’ must refer back to subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii) of paragraph (b). It is just a simple printing change.

I appreciate that if one looks in particular at paragraphs (b)(iii)(aa) and (bb) of my amendment, one may well get the impression that my definition at the moment refers to legislation which the hon. the Minister may be planning to repeal in future in order to consolidate this legislation. I am therefore not going to be unreasonable and suggest that the definition as it appears on the Order Paper is perfect, although I think it is better than and improves on the definition in the Bill. For that reason I am, however, not going to push it very hard or fight very long for the acceptance of this definition at this stage. I hope the hon. the Minister will react to the definition contained in my amendment and will point to its strengths and weaknesses. Once I have heard the hon. the Minister on this, I shall make another suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, coming back to what I said in my Second Reading speech, I do not believe that we will find a definition of “unfair labour practice” here today which is going to suit all situations for all times. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that we will certainly be supporting his amendment.

We agree with many of the reasons which the hon. member for Pinelands gave. I will not repeat those particular arguments, except to re-emphasize certain aspects and difficulties which the hon. the Minister, and therefore the industrial courts, will have with the definition as it appears in the Bill. The hon. member for Pinelands also indicated the scope of this and the difficulties, one is going to be dealing with. One thinks of the definition of “employment opportunities” which again is equally wide and of the moral or social welfare aspects which go with this. The question of what constitutes an unfair labour practice is not going to be solved by casting nets very wide and saying that in for instance the specific area of employment opportunities certain practices, which cannot stand up to the test provided, constitute unfair labour practices. Therefore, I prefer the more specific definition in terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands, because the unfair labour practice can be related more specifically to an individual or a group of employees or employers. The dilemma which we have with the definition of “unfair labour practice” is that one has to relate to certain norms, customs or standards in order to judge the degree of deviation in what is an unfair labour practice, not in terms of the individual so much, but in terms of groups of people and concerning the displacement of one group by another, the economic advantage or disadvantage in the long run because of a change in wage structures, and the disadvantage or the advantage for one party or the other where one group is displaced by another. One thinks for instance of the example mentioned by the hon. the Minister himself, the example of the textile clothing, and “cut, make and trim” industries. Any displacement, years ago of one group by another, which could then have been anticipated, would obviously affect the welfare, employment opportunities, etc., of the group which is being displaced, could be said to be an unfair labour practice. Our dilemma here is what one should use as a standard? I am not talking about specific terms of conditions of employment for an employee, because that is easy to determine and presents no problem. One can simply see whether he is better off on Monday or on Tuesday. However, when one comes to collective action …

You can measure it from day to day.

That is the point. The hon. member for Von Brandis is wide awake. That is the point I am talking about. However, it is when one comes to collective or group displacement, or group advantage or disadvantage, that one is going to have the difficulty which has been so well put by the hon. member for Pinelands. That is why we do not think that the definition contained in the Bill is going to overcome the problems which the existing definition, which is also too wide, presents for the industrial court. We would, therefore, like to put our money on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands rather than on the definition contained in the Bill, because we feel the hon. member for Pinelands’ amendment gets closer to eliminating the practical problems which the industrial court will have.

Until case law has been developed and we have had the test of the courts, we will not even know whether the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands is going to work satisfactorily, and he admitted it himself. We have no difficulty with the wording of the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands either and we would like the hon. the Minister to tell us why he thinks the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands is not as good as the amending definition in the Bill. I also want to point out to the hon. the Minister that we must differentiate very carefully in the definition of “unfair labour practice” between what affects an individual, which can be measured very easily, and the inter-group disadvantage or benefit, the advantageous or disadvantageous position of one group compared to another. I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister does not think that a definition of “unfair labour practice” should be re-categorized in terms of group relationships and individual employer-employee relationships in the future.

Mr. Chairman, one could hardly believe that this is a debate on labour legislation. There are probably one of two reasons for this peace and quiet. Either we are very close to the end of this session, or this must be very good legislation.

I want to dwell for a moment on the amendments moved by the hon. member for Pinelands. The hon. member for Pinelands conceded that sub-paragraphs (aa), (bb) and (cc) of his amendment concern facets about which he does not feel very strongly. The hon. member intimated that he understood that we were perhaps beating the gun here, but it could be that something could arise out of the expected report of the Wiehahn Commission which could result in these measures being consolidated or incorporated in other legislation, with the result that we may be doing these things unnecessarily. In other words, this basically concerns the first section of the definition of “unfair labour practices” in the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands. Just before I dwell for a moment on the details of this matter I wish to address a few words to the hon. member for Durban North.

The hon. member for Durban North states that he would like to know why the hon. the Minister believes that the definition as contained in the Bill is better than the one proposed by the hon. member for Pinelands. Of course, I am not acquainted with the advisers of the hon. members for Pinelands. However, there is one thing that I believe we must bear in mind. The people who drafted the definition under discussion are indeed experts. As hon. members are already aware, some of them have been engaged in this kind of task for 21 years.

Are you speaking about the people who drafted the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands?

No, I am discussing the definition in the Bill. We can therefore take it that this is a relatively well-considered definition, a definition which has been properly evaluated. The hon. member for Pinelands advanced various reasons as to why he was unhappy with the definition as it is stated in the Bill at present. Among other things, he was unhappy, for example, with the provision relating to social welfare; the social aspects to which reference is made in the Bill. Perhaps I should just refer the hon. member briefly to section 24 of the principal Act. We find there a number of aspects which agreements reached by an industrial council or a reconciliation board, or even a case in an industrial court, could relate to. They comprise, inter alia, social matters, for example pension funds, gratuities, medical funds, etc., which are in fact of a social character. The hon. member is aware of that.

Then the hon. member asked how the court was to know and whether a number of unnecessary cases would not perhaps be brought before the court. I believe that in that regard the hon. member is quite correct. I must say that I myself am not so adverse to the hon. member’s effort to define “unfair labour practice”. On the other hand, however, it is equally true that we shall have to afford this industrial court the opportunity to impose its own stamp on this specific new term. This is an entirely new principle. It is an entirely new terminology in our labour legislation. Just as the old industrial court had to place a certain interpretation on certain problems and terminology it dealt with, and did so in a very able way, I believe that we should afford the new court the opportunity to overcome these problems in its own way and in its own time.

It is important to realize that neither this Government nor any previous Government has even attempted to introduce labour legislation which took the form of a straitjacket. We have always believed in flexible legislation. Therefore my only fear is that if we were now to decide to use the more detailed definition of the hon. member for Pinelands, we may categorize too narrowly. However, in the wider definition as stated in the Bill we can create the opportunity for the court—and after all, we all have confidence in that court—to find its own way among all the problems. In the first place, we cannot simply come before the court with a lot of arguments. Every malpractice or unfair practice in labour must in any event relate to the service relationship between the employer and the employee. It must relate to that. In other words it must fall within the limits set by section 24 of the principal Act. In the second place, the group or trade union which is making the application still has to prove its case before the industrial court.

The hon. member made another statement as well. He referred to subparagraph (b) in line 6 on page 5 of the Bill. I refer to the English text. I quote—

The hon. member said that his difficulty was that he regarded the provision as being too general.

It is too broadly stated.

Yes, but it is a general provision because an effort is being made here to include what has been excluded. It is therefore an effort to include that which has not been categorized in total. Of course, this is not a principle that is alien to our industrial conciliation legislation. If one looks at the definition in section 24, one finds that type of provision, in the same spirit, at the end, after paragraph (z). Those things which are stipulated in section 24, from paragraph (a) to paragraph (z), and which could perhaps have been left out, because labour legislation is dynamic and service contracts may vary from time to time, result in our having a similar provision there. I do not want to quote it, because it is somewhat long, but the hon. member knows about it. I just want to point out to the hon. member that this is not a new principle.

If that is so, I believe that both sides of the House are speculating as to what will be the easiest way to define this new expression. We have in fact now found a definition by way of the department and its experts. When I say that, I am not shooting the hon. member’s definition down unnecessarily, but do I believe that he can leave this aspect in the hands of the court without any hesitation. Let us see how it develops. If, then, we needs must introduce some of the other aspects when further consolidation is effected, then we can do so at that stage.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that this definition is a very difficult one. Indeed, the fact that we are coming to this House within such a short time—that is to say, since last year—shows that it is difficult. I also said that we were breaking new ground. If anyone in this House puts forward a definition concerning such a difficult matter, and I am convinced that it is a good definition, I shall accept it immediately. However, I do not think the hon. member’s definition is good enough. To tell the truth, I do not think it is an improvement. If it had been an improvement, I should have accepted it. The answer is therefore that I am unable to accept it.

The hon. member asked why I could not accept it. The reason is that the hon. member’s definition is too limiting. We are trying to incorporate the legal principle that the general should dominate the specific. That is what I am trying to do with my definition. That is why I think that my definition is stronger than the hon. member’s one. We could argue until tomorrow about this matter. It only concerns a single aspect. This is how I see it: The hon. member’s definition is too narrow. I say the definition must be wider. Look, we have an industrial court to point out all the weaknesses to us. I am not a judge; nor is the hon. member. If, then, the definition is not wide enough, the judge is the one to say that we must define it in such and such a way, and then it will be correct in practice. However, if there is no such thing in practice and we have to create such a thing for the first time, I say it must be wide enough. We must try to make it comprehensive enough and then leave it to the court to tell us what the mistake is. I am now stating in simple English why I think my definition is better than the hon. member’s. Therefore I am unable to accept his definition.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be as short and I think as sweet. First I should like to say to the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria East that I appreciate the comments and reaction I have had. I appreciate the support of the hon. member for Durban North too. I think his speech was the best of three I have listened to.

I am prepared to withdraw this amendment if the hon. member for Durban North allows me to do so. I am prepared to withdraw it simply because I believe it is difficult. There are problems. Obviously I cannot make conditions for the withdrawal of my amendment, but I hope that the hon. the Minister will refer my definition, as it appears on the Order Paper, to the department and to the court so that they can have a look at it.

I believe that in the same way as we had the experts with us last year, we now have the experts having to change their minds very considerably.

I do not, of course, blame them for that because it is a very difficult matter. Together with that I want to make a suggestion. I believe that the courts should develop a code of employment practices which could be, for themselves, and I believe for South Africa too, a yardstick. I am not talking about race now. I am not interested in that. I am talking about unfair labour practices, whether they eliminate from the employer or the employee, and whether he is White, Black, Pink or Brown, I could not care less. What I am interested in is having industrial peace and having a good definition for the courts. For that reason I think that the courts would be well advised to work out, as soon as possible, a code of employment practices as a yardstick.

A second suggestion I want to make is that it may well be that the manpower commission should take a look at the definition that is before us now in clause 1, and the amendment I am withdrawing, and itself do some work on this. The commission has a bunch of very prominent, expert people, and perhaps all of us together can arrive at the best possible definition for labour and management in South Africa.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I do not have to delay the Committee very long on this one. I referred to it in my Second Reading speech.

I move the amendments printed in my name on page 283 of the Order Paper, as follows—

In the clause I am seeking to amend, the powers being granted to the manpower commission include those conferred upon the Registrar by subsections (4), (5) and (7) of section 12. I am suggesting that we insert only “(a) and (b)” after “(4)”, thus deleting (c). The reason why I am suggesting that is that if we accept the clause as it stands the manpower commission will be empowered to enter premises without prior notice. I believe that it makes more sense to accept the amendment. Members of the manpower commission will then still be able to do their work. We shall not be tying their hands in any way, but I have an uncomfortable feeling about making it possible for still further groups of individuals to enter the premises of employers or employees without prior notice.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member proposes really does not make much difference. However, let us concede that it does make perhaps a ½% difference. I therefore accept the amendments.

That’s neat, very nice!

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in our attitude since the Second Reading and the Committee Stage as no amendments have been accepted. As the hon. the Deputy Minister knows we have a basic objection, an objection in principle, and even though it is simply a transfer of power from one piece of legislation to this piece of legislation, we rejected it originally and we take the opportunity of rejecting it again now. We object to the granting of powers to a non-judicially trained body of men, the Makgotla, to exercise a form of tribal law in the urban townships. For that reason we shall simply register our opposition against the Third Reading.

We do not oppose the transfer of Mafeking, but we are still doubtful and have not received any explanation—maybe the hon. the Deputy Minister will take advantage of the Third Reading in his reply to give us some information—as to the reason for the wide powers taken by the Minister of Cooperation and Development under clause 9. For the rest we have nothing further to add.

Mr. Speaker, this is of course exactly the attitude we had expected from the PFP, and exactly the attitude we had expected from the hon. member for Houghton. She is cast in the mould of the old-time liberal who seeks to prescribe to the Black man what is good for him and what is not good for him.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member should just give me a chance to speak. The Makgotla system was introduced in 1927 at the request of the Black people. Now she tells us that the Black people of Soweto do not want it, but Soweto is not the only place where there are Black people; surely there are Black people throughout the Republic of South Africa. One still finds the conservative, tradition-bound and culturebound Black man on the platteland, and in terms of his own culture he would like to have structures on the basis of which he can penalize people with powers awarded to him in terms of the 1927 Act. It is not a question of these people constituting a mere “kangaroo court” as she puts it. The fact is that the conservative Black people, the people who are still bound to their culture, the Black people who are still tradition-bound, welcome this system and want it. I could advance a long argument on the basis of the Viljoen report as to why we should retain this system for them. However it would not change her mind in the slightest, because last year she adopted exactly the same standpoint. By way of these few remarks I just want to bring home to her once again what her attitude is, and that we could change nothing. In fact, I think she acted in an insulting way towards the conservative Black man by belittling him as a mere “kangaroo court”.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, regrettably I was unable to be present in this House when the Second Reading of this particular amendment Bill was taken. There are one or two points that I should like to make to the hon. the Minister in this regard and there is an amendment that I should like to move on clause 1 of this Bill.

This clause very clearly states that the hon. the Minister shall have the right to designate any area for the purposes of this amendment Bill. There is no limitation on the area that he can designate. If he so wished, he could designate the whole country in terms of this amendment Bill. He has the power to do so, and I believe that this House would be unwise to give him this very wide power, not that I think that this hon. the Minister would necessarily abuse this power, but one never can tell, when passing legislation, who the incumbent will be of the post of that hon. the Minister in time to come. While the law is on the Statute Book, the Minister, whoever he might be, will have the right to designate any area for the purposes of this amendment Bill. Should he act in this way, it is fairly obvious that the activities of the Industrial Development Corporation could be extended into every single commercial and service aspect of economic life in South Africa. We know, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister himself would agree, that this would be a direct contradiction of the principles of any free enterprise society. Therefore, I as an amendment move—

My purpose in moving this amendment is quite clear. That is that it will restrict the power of the hon. the Minister to designate any area throughout the Republic in terms of this amendment Bill. It will restrict his right to designate an area only to those areas in which there are Community Councils. We are told that this is the purpose of this particular amendment Bill. We are told that the purpose is that the IDC will be used to the advantage of Black businessmen in Black urban areas. We are aware of the fact that there is the Economic Development Corporation which assists Blacks in the homeland areas, but which is, in terms of its charter, unable to help Blacks in urban areas. We are told that this is the sole intention behind this Bill. If that is the case, the hon. the Minister can have no objection to seeing an amendment of this nature being accepted in this House.

I apologize for the fact that I have not been able to give the hon. the Minister or his department any notice of my intention to move this amendment, but you, Sir, more than most, will appreciate the situation with which we in this House are faced at the moment where we are sitting long hours and late hours. We are working under pressure the whole time, and are only able to get to actually giving consideration to these sort of questions shortly before they are actually moved in this House. Therefore I appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this amendment very serious consideration. It will have the effect of limiting the area which he can designate, in terms of this amending Bill, to areas in which there are Community Councils established under section 2 of the Community Councils Act. That should include every Black urban area throughout the RSA and I of course exclude the homelands because the Economic Development Corporation also handles the situation in those areas.

Mr. Chairman, it is not unreasonable to move such an amendment, but I think it is expecting a little too much after I had already explained in the Other Place that this is a transitionary measure which may remain on the Statute Book for only a year or perhaps not even that long. It is in fact a bridging measure to enable the Government to put the IDC in a legal position enabling them to relieve the distress prevailing in Soweto with regard to business enterprises, by getting them off the ground and giving the people hope that they can do it, because the human infrastructure is there and the IDC has the ability to afford guidance and financial assistance and all those aspects that are necessary, assistance by way of a mature development corporation which is today a prestige corporation in all respects. However, I also explained that we do not wish to attach a racial connotation to these wide powers—let us put it like that—which are being vested in the hon. the Minister. By granting wide powers, one limits him considerably, because if one grants too much power it can be abused and can lead to the downfall of the person who abuses it. Alternatively they could be implemented very effectively in accordance with the motivation I gave in my Second Reading.

The aim here is to increase the standard of living of these people through the establishment of business undertakings. There are at least eight cases of people waiting urgently to get the green light to proceed. The IDC is the only corporation which can act immediately at this stage and we want to give them the right to act on a temporary basis without introducing any racial connotation in this regard. This may last for a year or two. We are working on the rationalization of these corporations in terms of the new policy of decentralization, and are considering establishing a development bank. All these things are in a transitional stage, and now the hon. member moves this amendment in terms of which he wants to pin me down, although his request is not an unreasonable one. Had we not been in a transitional stage, I might have said that his request was exceptionally reasonable. I ask him to accept my word and rather to allow me to state it broadly, as it appears here, because I mentioned during the Second Reading what it sought to achieve. This is something which will have to come into being during the coming parliamentary recess. It will require Government action. I therefore feel that it is in fact unnecessary to introduce this amendment as well at this point. Therefore I should like to ask the hon. member to drop the amendment, since he moved it at a very late stage and I shall have to reconsider the whole Act if I am to determine the implications of this amendment. The Industrial Development Act of 1940 contains a number of provisions into which one would have to introduce this wording to legalize them, if one were to accept this amendment. Therefore one would not be able to introduce it in one specific provision.

Mr. Chairman, we entirely accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation at Second Reading of the purposes of the Bill and of the period of transition he has in mind before new legislation is introduced. If the question centred around that particular point, or the acceptability of the hon. the Minister’s undertaking, we would have no difficulty with this particular amendment. We would then not consider it to be either desirable or necessary. But there is one point I should like to make to the hon. the Minister. In the Second Reading debate on this Bill with its amendment to extend the authority of the IDC in respect of business and service activities, are made it clear to the hon. the Minister that we would support the Bill because in our view he was trying to render a service to the Community Councils and was giving the IDC—which in terms of his own charter, its own Act, is restricted to industrial undertakings—a broader scope and authority to give assistance to the Community Councils, a project and an intention which we supported. So far there has been no argument between the hon. the Minister and ourselves. We agree that this is a desirable objective.

At Second Reading we pointed out that we had a difficulty with this Bill. It has long been felt and argued that the IDC has certain functions in the South African economy which should as far as possible be defined and circumscribed in terms of a charter so that the IDC would not be tempted, as it has on a few occasions in the past been tempted, to go beyond the stimulation of new industries or the rendering of services to inefficient industries. It has in fact been known to go wider than that. Grave concern has been expressed as to the inroads being made by a very powerful State corporation into the field of private enterprise. I am sure the hon. the Minister is still with me. He is aware of this and of the doubts and fears which have been expressed in this regard.

We have reached agreement on these two points. The hon. member for East London North is asking only one thing, and that is that we accept the first and the second point. In other words, he is saying that we must agree that the IDC shall have the broader functional powers requested by the hon. the Minister. Let the corporation have the right to give business assistance and service assistance to the Community Councils, but let us avoid the second danger of extending the powers so widely that they can be applied to any business activity, any economic enterprise anywhere in South Africa. Clearly that cannot be the hon. the Minister’s intention. It goes far beyond the intent of the IDC’s charter, and I am sure it goes far beyond the hon. the Minister’s intention. All we are therefore asking is that our two purposes be brought together. Let the IDC have the authority to give business and service assistance to Community Councils, but let the extension of those powers be confined and be related to those councils in order that there should be no misunderstanding about the IDC’s right to invade other fields of private enterprise, something nobody wants. Therefore we believe that we and the hon. the Minister are entirely ad idem. We believe there is no difference between us. We merely wish this Bill to do what the hon. the Minister means. That is all we are asking. We believe this will not interfere with the hon. the Minister’s later plans in relation to the IDC’s co-ordinating activities during the transitional phase he is talking about where it will be rendering more assistance to Community Councils. I am sure it is still not the hon. the Minister’s intention that the IDC should, after the transitional phase, suddenly extend its activities throughout the economic field in South Africa to the disadvantage of private enterprise throughout the country. This cannot be his intention. He wants the IDC to be more efficient, and by limiting the IDC’s activities he will have the confidence that the IDC will do the very thing which he is planning to do in terms of this measure. We therefore respectfully ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider our amendment as it contains no harm. It will only do good and is not in conflict with his intentions.

Mr. Chairman, there are two further points which I want to bring to the Minister’s attention again. He has made the appeal with regard to my amendment that in view of the fact that this legislation can be regarded as temporary, we should not be overly concerned about it and therefore should not try to limit his powers. We in these benches have had experience of so-called temporary powers before. I fully accept the hon. the Minister’s bona fides and I am quite sure that he intends it to be temporary legislation, but regrettably—we know this is the nature of life and humanity—intentions that are very genuine now are not necessarily the same in six months’ or 12 months’ time. We saw on a previous occasion excise and tax on motor vehicles being introduced as a temporary measure. I cannot recall exactly how many years ago that was, but it was probably some 25 or 30 years ago. In any event, that temporary measure is still in force. Temporary measures therefore have a habit of becoming permanent, and there is regrettably nothing in this legislation which says that this Bill will only be of force and effect for 12 months, 18 months or whatever it might be. We have to accept the Bill before the House for what it is, and that is that it is a Bill which seeks to amend the Industrial Development Act of 1940. We therefore have to look at this Bill in the light that it could bring about a permanent change in the Industrial Development Act and will require further amending legislation to remove it from the Statute Book. I am afraid that we therefore cannot give credence to the argument that it is only a temporary measure. The hon. the Minister said this could affect many other provisions. It is quite clear that the department, in going through this Bill, has checked all the provisions relative to the Industrial Development Act of 1940 and have come up with two additions in the Bill. These amendments are contained in clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. I therefore do not believe that there is any danger of an anomalous situation being created if the hon. the Minister should accept my amendment, which I still hope he will do.

Mr. Chairman, I am amazed that the hon. member for East London North, supported by the hon. member for Constantia, has moved this amendment. I thought they belonged to the PFP, which believes in no discrimination. What is the IDC? I want to ask those two hon. members: How many Whites in this country over the years have received technical, managerial and financial assistance from the IDC?

Relating to industry?

What does it matter whether it is industry, commerce or the service industry? What difference does it really make? During the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister whether he had any intention of declaring the CBD of Johannesburg a designated area, because we have read a lot in the Press of late of the CBD of Johannesburg being opened to Blacks. The hon. the Minister said he was only thinking of Soweto, or thinking of Soweto in particular, but that this was an interim stage of revision of the whole IDC and its activities. That party, however, is eulogized by the Press as a champion of the Blacks in this country and the removal of discrimination, yet it comes along with an amendment that is blatant discrimination, because it is asking for Blacks to be denied rights that Whites already have in this country.

That is twisting it.

I am not twisting it. The IDC can, at the present time, give Whites assistance, certainly in industrial activities. Those hon. members, however, want to limit the corporation’s activities to Black urban areas. I can only assume that they would hate to think that the IDC would now be able to assist Blacks in business operations outside Black urban areas, e.g. the Johannesburg CBD. I really cannot understand that party. They are so split down the middle.

Why discriminate against Whites?

The PFP is discriminating against Blacks by asking the hon. the Minister to amend the legislation so that it will discriminate against Blacks some time or other in the future. Shocking!

Mr. Chairman, I was not in a position to see the wording of the amendment. At this stage I have not yet had an opportunity to see the amendment. However, I said at the outset that I had no objection to the spirit of the amendment as it was moved, because that is in fact what we intended. I do not much feel like going with this to the Other Place again, but since those hon. members are making out such a strong case for this I think that I must, in co-operation with the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, allow the PFP, in this case, to have an amendment with a racial connotation accepted. If we can rectify the wording, or if it is already in order with regard to the legislation as it reads at present, the amendment may be accepted. However, I should very much like to see the amendment personally. In such a case I shall already have explained why I am in fact accepting it. Those hon. members have already indicated that they are prepared to attach a racial connotation to an amendment in certain cases, something which I did not really want to do. However, those hon. members were not prepared to trust me for one year, even at a time when we are placing our whole economy on a new basis.

I have just looked at the amendment and I can see that the amendment as it is stated is in fact in the spirit of the legislation as intended by the Government. Therefore, since it is entirely in the spirit of the legislation, it will not deviate from what we had in mind. However, we did not intend incorporating it in this legislation because we regarded it as unnecessary at this stage to attach a racial connotation to any legislation of this nature even at a time such as this. I shall accept the amendment as it has been moved here.

Amendment agreed to (New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Third Reading

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bill, which has now passed through all its stages except Third Reading, will have an effect which I think the hon. the Minister should bear in mind in the implementation of this Bill and of many other Bills. We have a situation here where the Industrial Development Corporation is, we hope, going to help Black businessmen in their commercial and service facilities, as well as in their industrial opportunities, an assistance which has always been the mandate of the Industrial Development Corporation.

A number of problems have arisen in this regard amongst various other organizations that exist to do exactly this sort of thing. In this regard I refer, for example, to the Economic Development Corporation and corporations such as the Ciskei National Development Corporation. One has a situation here where these corporations have a certain sum of share capital and are also financed from loan capital. They get the use of that loan capital at interest rates which at present are of the order of 9 to 9½%. They then have to lend that money to developing businesses in order to develop the kind of business that is specifically covered by this amendment Bill. They lend that money at approximately 2,25%. What is the inevitable result of a situation of this nature? If one has a corporation that makes a practise of borrowing money at a rate of 9,5% and lending it at a rate of 2,25%, that corporation can only go one way: Downhill to insolvency. I believe the hon. the Minister of Industries and other hon. Ministers will have to take this fact into consideration. I believe that this is a very important factor which is now, after these corporations have been running for a number of years, getting to a point where it is, getting out of control. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this.

I should also like to react briefly to the objection of the NRP. I am very glad that the hon. the Minister was not fooled by a somewhat ignorant argument. It was an argument in which it was suggested that an amendment was discriminatory, which, of course, it was not. I should like to point out to those hon. members that discrimination actually implies that one does something to the disadvantage of others. What we were seeking to do in this Bill is something to the advantage of Black people in the designated areas—not to their disadvantage, but to their advantage. In the first instance …

Why not then only to one area?

It is not discriminatory in that regard. Then the hon. member for Amanzimtoti suggested that in moving this amendment we were preventing Blacks from being helped in CDB.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member in fact meant CBD when he said CDB. It was quite clear that he meant central business districts. I should like the hon. member for Amanzimtoti and his party to tell me in what instance a Black man can own a business, a bank, an industry, etc., in a central business district. In terms of the laws of this country they are not allowed … [Interjections.] It is true that we are not in any shape or form trying to be discriminatory in this measure. All we were doing in moving this amendment, was to prevent the Industrial Development Corporation from moving into commercial activities throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. We were simply trying to prevent them from moving into commercial opportunities with Whites or any other race group. This is not important, however. What we basically disagreed with in this regard was that the Industrial Development Corporation should actually begin to become involved in commercial operations. Therefore I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister accepted the amendment, because it does have the effect of limiting the aid that the Industrial Development Corporation can give in these circumstances to those who really need that help. Therefore we will not object to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to rise to speak in this Third Reading debate. Since the hon. member for East London North has seen fit, however, to raise the matter of his amendment, I feel I am obliged to enter into the debate.

I made our viewpoint quite clear during Second Reading, when I asked the hon. the Minister whether, in the event of the Johannesburg central business district being opened to all races, this provision which we have before us could also apply to that area, should the Minister decide to designate it as an area for IDC activity in terms of this legislation.

That would be unfair competition with free enterprise.

We were hoping that possibly, should the central business district of Johannesburg be opened to all races, by amending clause 118 of the Group Areas Act, which already gives the Minister the power to allow Coloureds and Indians to own businesses in central business districts, that it would also be possible—and we would have liked to see it—for a Black entrepreneur to approach the Industrial Development Corporation and ask for assistance, as many Whites have done in the past, as far as industries are concerned. We were hoping that they would be enabled to go to the Industrial Development Corporation and say they would like to open, for instance, a supermarket or some other small service industry in the Johannesburg central business district, and ask the Industrial Development Corporation to assist them in that effort. That is what we would have liked to see.

The NRP is a party that does not believe in discrimination. The hon. member for East London North says that his amendment will not mean that any Black will be disadvantaged. I should like to put it to him that he is quite wrong, because if section 118 of the Group Areas Act should ever be amended, Blacks who might then be able to own and operate businesses in a central business district would then be disadvantaged as a result of this hon. member’s amendment to this Bill. I believe it is now very clear for all to see that this great, liberal, freedom-loving, non-discriminating party, the PFP, is afraid that the Whites might encounter a little bit of competition from Blacks. That is why they have now asked the hon. the Minister to amend this Bill in order to limit the Industrial Development Corporation in its assistance of Blacks, so that such assistance will only be able to be given in areas designated specifically for Blacks in terms of the Group Areas Act. I believe that the PFP has now exposed, for all to see, their duplicity in their whole attitude towards these things. A little bit of competition when it comes to business persuades them to go along with the hon. the Minister in what is—after all—apartheid legislation. This is the old-style apartheid group areas legislation. That is there now for all to see.

Mr. Speaker, I explained to hon. members at the outset, in the Second Reading and subsequently, exactly what was envisaged with this very limited legislation, with the idea that this was a bridging measure, which it in fact is. I also asked that there would be confidence that I would not abuse this power but that I would be true to my purpose and would not give this a racial connotation in the times we are living in. Up to now, in the Other Place as well, I have felt that it was unnecessary for me to effect changes, but I felt that since it is the aim of the Act to assist only the large urban areas in the time that remains, viz. where there are already Community Councils, it is not wrong in terms of the aim of the Act to accept the amendment. At the same time we are proving what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti said. Say for the sake of argument there was a possibility that the central business area was open and that I could have assisted the Black people by way of the IDC, and say for example there were also businessmen on the platteland, but there was no Community Council, I could indeed have used my discretion there if they had allowed me to. Therefore the discrimination was not really in respect of White and Black, because I often said that it was in fact for those people who really needed it, but by accepting this I am now keeping strictly to the objectives of the Act by imposing on myself an obligation to accept what is so specifically confined solely to the areas where there are community councils, but what also complies with the aims of the Act. Now the Opposition shows me that they are by no means unreceptive to an argument to implement discrimination as well. This they have now done, and in this case we are applying discrimination for whatever reason, and in a certain sense the NRP has assisted me by accepting an amendment about which the official Opposition is now very pleased, but which in the long run reveals their true colours.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The aim of the Bill at present before the House is twofold; namely, in the first place, to accommodate students of South West Africa who are studying in the Republic by giving them a choice whether or not to register as voters in the Republic and, secondly, to arrange that voters in the Mafeking district which, in terms of the provisions of the Borders of Particular States Extension Act, will form part of Bophuthatswana, may register as voters in a Cape Province constituency.

As regards the students from South West Africa who study in the Republic, such a student who retains his home in South West Africa and receives training in the Republic must at present, in terms of the provisions of section 11 of the Electoral Act, register as a voter in the constituency of the Republic where he actually resides for the purpose of receiving training at an educational institution. In terms of a proclamation issued by the Administrator-General of South West Africa, No. AG 8 of 1980, anyone whose name appears on a voters’ roll in a constituency in the Republic may not vote in South West Africa.

It is therefore necessary, with a view to elections during the second half of the year in South West Africa, to amend the Electoral Act, 1979, to provide that students of South West Africa who reside in the Republic for the purpose of receiving training at an educational institution here, must have the choice whether or not to be registered as voters in the Republic, and accordingly an amendment to the Electoral Act, 1979, is proposed in clause 1 of the Bill in order to achieve this aim.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House see no difficulty with the Bill. We shall therefore support it. We welcome the fact that arrangements have been made as far as students from South West Africa who attend these institutions are concerned with regard to their registration as voters. Although Mafeking is now being incorporated into Bophuthatswana, the people of Mafeking will still have a vote in South Africa. In terms of this, they can be registered at the nearest magistrate’s office to their home, as the crow flies. I just wonder whether the hon. the Minister can indicate, during the course of the discussion, whether a polling district will eventually be made available near Mafeking during an election and how far the people of Mafeking will have to go in order to vote, or whether they would have to rely on postal votes.

Mr. Chairman, we, too, support this specific legislation. There is just one question I want to put to the hon. the Deputy Minister. In a case such as that of Mafeking which is now to form part of an independent Black State, the inhabitants are included in the number of voters of the province. The territory of the independent State is not, however, included in the surface area of the province. I just want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether we should not perhaps at a later stage bring about uniformity by excising the surface areas of the homelands, even those that are not yet independent.

Mr. Chairman, I thank hon. members for their support. I want to say to the hon. member for Durban Central that it is true that the surface areas of the independent territories are not included in the area constituencies. On the other hand it is impossible to exclude the surface area of the national States which are not yet independent, from area constituencies.

I want to say to the hon. member for Hillbrow that arrangements are being made to allow the inhabitants of Mafeking to vote in their part of the world by way of negotiations between the State in question and the Department of the Interior.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill contains amendments to eight Acts administered by the Financial Institutions Office, i.e. the Insurance Act, the Stock Exchanges Control Act, the Unit Trusts Control Act, the Pension Funds Act, the Friendly Societies Act, the Participation Bonds Act, the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act. The legislation before the House understandably deals with a wide range of issues. I shall confine my remarks to the more important ones.

A number of amendments proposed to the Insurance Act have as their object the rationalization in the different classes of long-term insurance business presently provided for. The current five classes are now reduced to two active classes, viz. life and home service business and two classes which will continue to enable existing policies to run off, viz. funeral and industrial business. Sinking fund business, a type of business which has become redundant, is to be abolished. In effect home service business is to replace funeral and industrial business, which have been serving overlapping areas and which have been characterized by similarities rather than differences. This type of insurance will be able to cater fully for the demands for life insurance on a modest scale.

The streamlining that is proposed in the long-term insurance field corresponds in its broad outlines with that recommended by the Commission of Inquiry into the Long-Term Insurance Industry.

An advisory committee on long-term insurance has been in operation from the beginning of 1978 and has proved to be very useful. In order to serve short-term insurance in a similar manner, an advisory committee on that category of insurance is now proposed, which, I have no doubt, will be equally useful.

Life insurers who are offering policies with benefits linked to the value of investment portfolios have found it increasingly difficult to keep such portfolios balanced in respect of Government securities and other prescribed assets as the result of the increased value of, especially, shares held in such portfolios. It is proposed to empower the Registrar to grant appropriate relief in this respect in deserving cases.

Hon. members will remember that last year the Insurance Act was amended to make it possible to deal with undesirable practices in general. Special legislation is, however, required to deal with a certain kind of undesirable practice, viz. the so-called “coercive selling”, whereby is meant the practice of requiring a person to make one or other insurance arrangement as a condition for, inter alia, acquiring a loan or service. The underlying reason for this practice is, of course, the insurance commission that can be earned by the party whose assistance is sought.

In so far as it is genuinely necessary to require one or other form of insurance to provide security for a debt, there can be no objection to such a requirement and a creditor will therefore not be forbidden to insist on security in the form of insurance if he can prove that in the circumstances of the case it is reasonable to require insurance.

There is, of course, also the possibility that a creditor may, even where it is completely legitimate to require insurance, force the debtor to take out the insurance with an insurer from whom the creditor can get the highest commission, but who is not necessarily offering the insurance that is best for the debtor. It is therefore provided that if insurance is required the debtor should be left a free choice as to both insurer and intermediary.

In one particular instance freedom of choice of insurer and intermediary is not insisted upon, viz. where mortgaged immovable property is insured and the mortgagee can prove that the premiums charged are reasonable. This concession is made in view of the fact that the interest of the mortgagee in the property concerned usually exceeds that of the mortgagor by far.

Is it not the other way round?

Complaints regarding coercive selling of insurance have been wide-spread and there is definitely a need for this measure. I hope that the disapproval of this practice which is shown by this measure will be sufficient to deter any party who stands in a position of financial power towards another from exploiting the weaker one by way of unnecessary and unwanted insurance.

As a result of losses sustained by members of the public because of the manner in which certain portfolio managers dealt with securities, especially listed securities entrusted to them, and of requests made to the Registrar, measures are introduced, by way of an amendment to the Stock Exchanges Control Act, to ensure that the business of portfolio managers is conducted in an orderly manner.

A proposed amendment to the Unit Trusts Control Act regulates the manner in which an amalgamation of two or more unit trust schemes or unit portfolios or the transfer or cession of rights in such schemes or portfolios can take place and grants exemption from the payment of stamp and other duties in connection therewith.

*Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments to the Pensions Act are aimed mainly at bringing about greater clarity and those to the Friendly Societies Act at keeping pace with changing circumstances. The Participation Bonds Act is being amended to provide that where a sectional title register is opened in respect of property which serves as security for an existing participation bond, a participation bond of less than R20 000 may be registered against a unit.

I now come to the amendments to the Banks Act and the Building Societies Act. The proposed amendments to the Banks Act deal, in the first place, with the practical problems which banking institutions experience with the present basis in terms of which minimum amounts of capital and unimpaired reserves, reserve balances and liquid assets which they have to maintain, are calculated.

In terms of the existing provisions of the Banks Act, the minimum amount of capital and unimpaired reserves that a banking institution has to maintain is determined quarterly as a specific percentage, namely 6%, of its liability to the public as at the end of the preceding quarter, and that portion of its liquid assets as well as the portion of those assets that it has to keep in cash with the Reserve Bank—the reserve balance, must be calculated on the basis of its liabilities as at the end of the preceding month.

The use of these quarterly and monthly figures for making these calculations sometimes causes serious problems for banking institutions, especially clearing banks, because at the end of those quarters and some months those figures rise to abnormal heights only to revert to normal suddenly after the end of the quarter or month. Such a position arises, for example, at the end of those months when a large number of companies have to meet their taxation commitments. Before the end of the month those companies deposit considerable sums in their respective accounts, amounts which disappear swiftly after the end of the month due to settlement of the cheques issued in favour of the Receiver of Revenue. These unrealistic quarterly and end-of-month figures then have to form the basis on which to determine the minimum amounts of capital and reserves, reserve balances and liquid assets that have to be maintained in the ensuing periods.

At the request of the banking institutions, the Technical Committee on Banking and Building Society Legislation recommended, after an investigation, that the Act be amended to provide that the minimum amount in capital and unimpaired reserves that a banking institution had to maintain should be calculated on the average of the total amount of the bank’s liabilities at the end of each of the three months of the preceding quarter, instead of on the figure as at the end of the quarter, and so that the liquid assets and reserve balance which a banking institution has to maintain in respect of its short-term liabilities be adjusted in respect of all the branches where the daily balance of its immediate demand liability may be determined by substituting the average of the daily balance for the end-of-month figure of those liabilities.

The other proposed amendment to the Banks Act will, just as in the case of the Building Societies Act, entitled married women and certain minors to deposit money in a banking institution and to deal with it as they see fit without the assistance of a husband or guardian.

Building societies can already advance money against the security of a leasehold right to land in urban Black residential areas, but their development companies cannot build on such land. In order to enable building societies, too, to assist in the building of houses in such areas, it is proposed, at their request, that the powers of their development companies, as laid down in section 22 of the Building Societies Act, be extended so that these companies may also erect buildings on such land.

With a view to the ever-increasing cost of housing, it is also proposed that in the case of a dwelling house, building societies be empowered to advance, apart from 80% of the valuation of the property, up to 80% of the cost of the transfer of the property as well, or of the leasehold right, or the lease or licence, and of the costs of registration and stamp duty.

The limitations incorporated in the Building Societies Act relating to the subscription shares which building societies may issue to one person, are being done away with in view of the fact that the Income Tax Act is being amended to limit the amount of tax-free dividends from subscription shares.

The other proposed amendments to the Building Societies Act relate to administrative matters.

Because of the urgency of some of these matters, building societies have been allowed to anticipate the proposed amendments and it is consequently proposed that the relevant provisions be made of retrospective effect.

Mr. Speaker, I may just mention that all the bodies with an interest in these amendments have been duly consulted and that there is general support for the amendments. I therefore ask this House to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister at the outset that we propose to support the Second Reading of this measure. It has become customary over a number of years that we have an omnibus measure such as this in terms of which a number of pieces of legislation, which relates to financial institutions, are dealt with in one measure in order to bring same up to date. One could argue that when one keeps amending a law, it creates a degree of uncertainty, but at the same time I think it must also be said in fairness that one is able to remedy defects as they arise and one is able to improve legislation year by year. There is little doubt that experience shows that in regard to financial institutions one learns as one goes along that there are always new things which need to be dealt with. It is in that spirit that we approach this legislation, and, as I have indicated, we shall support the Second Reading.

The first principle, as indicated by the hon. the Deputy Minister, is that we are cutting down on the number of types of long-term insurance business and that meets with our approval.

I want to raise the whole question of the home-service policy and the desirability of these policies which involve tremendous administration costs, because in many cases the collections are made at the homes of the individuals concerned. The establishment and maintenance costs of policies of such a nature are, to my mind, so high that the real insurance benefits which are obtained from other policies, which do not have such a high cost structure, should be looked at. We have had examples in the past of people having paid instalments on premiums on a monthly basis over many, many years, only to end up with policy amounts in which they are extremely disappointed. I wonder whether one should not look at the whole picture of home service policies again and try to create some kind of system similar to the gyrosystem in terms of which the payment of premiums does not involve calling on people in their individual homes, and that in the case of policies that are so small. The hon. the Deputy Minister has heard this argument from me before, because it is really the smaller man, the poor man, who has to take out the smaller policy, yet the administration costs of such policies are the highest. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he, in conjunction with the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, look at a gyro-system for South Africa to deal with such payments in an effort to reduce costs, not only as far as this matter is concerned but also in regard to a whole series of other matters.

While we are on the whole question of this type of policy, may I refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to the amendment contained in clause 15. This deals with a receipt to be issued for a premium for a home service policy or a funeral policy, as it is referred to here. I am indebted to my colleague, the hon. member for East London North, for the reference to this. Why should this now be restricted? Why should the giving of a receipt be restricted to instances of a person personally calling on the policyholder? The proposed new section 57A(1) reads—

Why should that apply only to premiums collected by a canvasser? Why should it not also apply in other circumstances, e.g. if a man goes into the office and pays the premium there, or in the case of any other mode of payment, for instance payment through the post or something of that nature? I wonder what the reason is for this particular provision.

A second matter I should like to deal with is the question of the advisory council on short-term insurance. I must say that we welcome the appointment. In fact, we hope that when the appointments are made to this particular committee, it will be representative of all the interested parties in the short-term insurance business, which means not only the short-term insurers themselves, but also the inter-mediaries and all other persons who are directly concerned with it. We therefore hope that it will be a completely representative committee. I would also be failing in my duty if I did not refer to the fact that there are many of us who are concerned at what is happening in the short-term insurance business in South Africa, who are very concerned about the cut rates that are being canvassed for in order to get the business and who are also concerned about the solvency margins of short-term insurers. That does not mean to say that we are casting doubt on the financial stability of institutions, but we believe that when one has rate-cutting of this kind, one is threatening the short-term insurers’ solvency. I have to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that this whole question of premium-cutting, the whole question of short-term insurers competing for business at all costs, is not unique to South Africa. It appears to be a universal manifestation at the moment, because more and more people have entered this business on a worldwide basis. So one looks with some degree of trepidation at this undercutting in the short-term insurance business on a world-wide scale. We in South Africa have now for a long period of time not had any trouble in regard to short-term insurance. We have had our share of trouble in years gone by, but we have not had it for quite a long time. I would like to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister and his department make certain that there will be no problems in regard to the short-term insurance industry in the future.

I should now like to come to what the hon. the Minister has in his Second Reading speech referred to as the conditional transactions. In principle we have no objection to this provision. As I have tried to indicate by way of an interjection to the hon. the Minister, I agree with the principle that he referred to. He said, too, that he has made the concession that the mortgagee can have more say in regard to the insurer where immovable property is concerned. He said—

I think the situation is that in reality the mortgage bond is normally for a greater amount than the equity that is left with the mortgagee. Therefore, this principle is in the circumstances acceptable to us. However, I have some problem in relation to the earlier provision insofar as it says that the accused must prove that it was reasonable to require the person concerned to have such an insurance having regard to the credit worthiness of the debtor and the other securities furnished or offered by the debtor and any other relevant circumstances. In our submission, if a man is only prepared to lend money if he gets the security of an insurance policy, that should be for him to decide. If he commits an offence and if he can be prosecuted because his judgment as to what is reasonable or not reasonable is open to question, that is a jeopardy to business as a whole. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that that provision should merely read that, if required, the person concerned should take out or renew a policy, because one cannot have this kind of jeopardy in business where the judgment as to what is reasonable or not will have to be made by a magistrate in a court perhaps years later. It seems to me to be an undesirable practice to introduce into business.

The other point I think one should bear in mind—this comes back to the question of rate cutting—is that if in respect of immovable property one is going to have the situation where people are going to argue as to what the premium should be, then one may well be encouraging a situation where people will go to a more risky rate-cutting insurance company to get a better premium. The mortgagee may well say to himself that as far as he is concerned he does not want to deal with that kind of company, but he wants to go to one of the more solid and reputable companies. I think one must allow some degree of discretion to the man who lends money and who says: “I want you to insure your property with a company which in fact is a solid company and not with one which is indulging in rate cutting.”

The other problem that we have is that this is really not a criminal matter. One must not turn the whole world into criminals with technical offences. Not only is this being turned into a criminal matter, but an onus of proof is being put on the person concerned so that whenever he takes a loan he has to prove all this in a criminal case. It does seem to us that this is introducing an element of criminal law into an aspect that should really be left to be determined in accordance with the normal civil provisions.

I should also like to refer to the question of the amendments to the Stock Exchange Act relating to portfolio management. I particularly welcome these provisions because I have pleaded in this House on a number of occasions for some degree of control to be exercised in respect of persons of this kind. I must say that I am also gratified that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he intends to move an amendment in terms of which professional people, trustees and persons of that sort will find themselves exempted from these elements of control. I think it is high time that such a provision was introduced, because there are many people who have entrusted their savings, their shares and their moneys to fly-by-nights, who have allegedly great skills in regard to the management of shares portfolios and who are very good in share dealings when the whole market rises, but who do not tend to have that same degree of skill when the market is not quite so bullish. Even when markets are bullish we find situations in which, when the day of reckoning comes, the people have suddenly disappeared from the scene and innocent people suffer substantial losses, and even insolvencies and liquidations. Therefore, we welcome this. We are only sorry that it was not introduced perhaps a little earlier so that some of the losses people have suffered could have been avoided.

Furthermore I should like to touch briefly on the question of the amendments to the Unit Trusts Control Act, and I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question in connection with section 31 of this particular Act. I should also like to refer him to clause 31 of the Bill, which seeks to insert a new section 23A in the Act, after section 23. In terms of the proposed section 23A(1)(a) the whole amalgamation proposal is conditional. It depends on the prior consent of the holders of the majority in value of unit certificates in each unit trust concern. If we look at the proposed section 23A(4), it says there—

In other words, what we are doing here—as I understand it—is deem that the majority have agreed unless the holders actively object to it and tend to write in. I wonder whether the correct procedure is not really to have a meeting. At such a meeting the majority of those present should be the ones to decide whether there should be an amalgamation or not. If everybody receives notice and everybody is aware that there is going to be a meeting, those who do not object or who do not turn up for the meeting, are left out of the decisions that are reached there. This seems to me to be a better proposal than the one that is contained in the Bill. Therefore, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, with respect, to give me some answer about why that should not be so in the circumstances.

I should also like now to refer the hon. the Deputy Minister to clause 40 of the Bill, which seeks to amend section 37A of the Pension Funds Act, 1956. In line 45, on page 31 of the Bill, the following provision is made—

That provision was introduced in terms of an amendment which I moved here some years ago. I merely want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that since that amendment was moved the rate of inflation has quite obviously been substantial. Even though I am unable to move an amendment to clause 40 at this stage, because of the technicalities of the rules of this House, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider this figure of R3 000 and to increase this substantially in the legislation which he will introduce next year in respect of this matter. I say that on the assumption that he will still be holding the same office. I do hope though he will make such a change, because R3 000 has lost a substantial portion of its value, and what should obviously be taken into account as well is an amount considerably in excess of the present one.

If I may, I should also like to refer briefly to clause 46 of the Bill. Again I should like to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I welcome this provision. I welcome it perhaps not for the reason which the hon. the Deputy Minister has given, but for a quite different reason. That is that I believe that one of the problems that banks have had at months’ ends and some of the manoeuvring that has gone on from time to time will be stopped by this particular provision. Therefore I welcome it for that reason, and also for the reasons advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Furthermore, I should also like to refer to clause 49 of the Bill, which seeks to insert a new section 23 in the Banks Act, 1965. The provision here in connection with minors and married women being entitled to open accounts and to operate accounts is something which we welcome.

In any case, we believe that that provision would be dealt with in the new matrimonial law that will come up and that the whole position of married women should be reviewed in regard to their contractual capacity. We also believe that the disabilities which married women suffer should be removed at the earliest opportunity and that we should really deal with the issue of discrimination between men and women and deal with it at a relatively early date so as to give women the proper contractual capacity, the proper status in regard to property and also the rights in regard to the administration of affairs to which married women are entitled, because there is no reason for this discrimination to occur.

I understand that in the Other Place there was objection from some parties in regard to the provisions of paragraph 4(b) of the proposed section 23, as contained in clause 49, where it says—

I understand that the comment was made in the Other Place by the colleagues of the hon. member for Mooi River that they objected to that and said that the man is entitled to know what money his wife has got in the bank. How, for instance, they said, can he possibly complete his income tax return if he does not know how much money his wife has got in the bank? Let me say to the hon. member for Mooi River and his colleagues in advance that, if the married woman will not disclose her income, the husband can apply to the Secretary for Inland Revenue that there should be a separate assessment. There is therefore no excuse to demand to pry into a woman’s private savings if she does not want to give the information. That excuse does not arise.

Where does the money come from?

I must tell hon. members that some of these male chauvinists are unaware of the fact that some women actually work, that some women earn their own keep and some women perhaps have their own savings.

Oh! Are you talking about working wives?

We do not agree with the NRP on this issue. We believe that, if married women want to put their savings into their own accounts, the decision they have to make as to whether they will tell their husbands, is exactly the same as the decision the husband has to make as to whether he tells his wife.

I agree with you; you are right.

Do you tell your wife?

I have no problem about my wife knowing what my savings are. They are so small that it does not really matter.

Lastly, I want to deal with the provisions of the Building Societies Act. I want to say that we welcome the concept that development companies may now also indulge in housing for Black people. We have always welcomed the concept that there should be a form of freehold tenure and that the building societies should be entitled to encourage such building operations and the granting of finance for this. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister tonight, an appeal relevant to this issue. We believe that 99-year leasehold is not enough; there should be complete freehold. There can be no reason for this restriction and therefore we want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister and the hon. the Minister that they, knowing how the building society movement operates, knowing how finance operates and knowing how important the ownership of property is for the stability of society, should use their influence with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and in the Cabinet to ensure that Black people, like all other people in South Africa, are entitled to enjoy the benefits of the ownership of freehold property.

We support the Second Reading of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, we want to thank the hon. member for Yeoville for his support of the legislation. We do not have much fault to find with what he said. Indeed, many of the arguments he advanced are our arguments too.

The hon. member did raise a number of matters which we shall probably dwell on at the committee stage. Basically, this is omnibus legislation, as the hon. the Deputy Minister explained. I therefore do not intend to repeat all the arguments he advanced in his Second Reading speech. Nor do I want to repeat many of the arguments that have already been advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville. I just wish to make a few brief remarks with regard to this Bill.

Basically, the legislation deals with institutions administered by the Office for Financial Institutions. We are and must be very proud of the fact that this office does good work and watches over the interests of the public. The changes are being effected to the Act in order to streamline the legislation. We are cutting out a lot of dead wood. This is to be welcomed. When sections of Acts become superflous due to altered circumstances, they must be rectified.

In the case of the Insurance Act, the amendments occurring in clauses 1 to 22 of the Bill form part of a process of rationalization in terms of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Long Term Insurance. We welcome this. Sinking fund insurance is now disappearing. I have never liked the Afrikaans word “amortisasiefonds”. I much preferred the better concept “delgingsfonds”. In any event, this is now disappearing, and I think that this is quite justified. It forms part of that dead wood to which I referred which is now being got rid of.

It is far better to invest capital reserve funds for the replacement of depreciating assets or to provide for the future redemption of debentures or bonds than to invest in the sinking funds we have had thus far.

The introduction of the concept of “home service business”—I do not know whether that is a very good word either, but for the lack of anything better, we shall accept it—carries our approval. Clause 15, to which the hon. member for Yeoville also referred, constitutes a specific protection of the public.

The establishment of an advisory committee on short-term insurance could be of great benefit to the industry. One assumes that various interested parties will have representation on this committee in order to give practical assistance to the registrar, who will be the chairman. The hon. member for Yeoville is quite justified in saying that there is concern about short-term insurance. I have before me a report which appeared in The Argus of 9 June 1980 in which the following appears—

It is true that there is a process of competition which is not healthy for the industry. We welcome the establishment of this advisory committee which I believe will be able to give the registrar good advice in this connection as well.

Reference is made in clause 9 to the prohibition on certain conditional transactions. Here again we have intervention by the State against the distortion of the free market mechanism. It is a fact that the independent, and in particular the smaller, insurance broker is experiencing problems in the sense that large companies like banks are linked to insurance enterprises and that as a result the public, when they borrow money, and particularly when they are in difficulties, are compelled to take the insurance prescribed for them by the specific institution. I do not think it is right for this to be done in this way, because what one has here is the formation of a quasi-monopoly. We are opposed to this kind of undertaking in South Africa. In other words, this clause states that a money lender may not use the embarrassment of a borrower to compel him to buy more insurance, over and above the borrowing transaction, the renewal transaction or the service transaction.

Hear, hear! That is a good thing. It is the only good thing that has been done today.

However, there are exceptions in the proposed section 2C(c) as contained in clause 23, and in my opinion these are quite reasonable.

The other clauses concerning the Insurance Act are for the most part consequential amendments.

Clauses 23 to 25 concern the Stock Exchanges Control Act. I think that clause 23 in particular seeks to afford the public a certain degree of protection and with the proposed amendment as printed on the Order Paper I believe that we can be quite satisfied with this change that is being effected. Portfolio managers are being brought under control and that is very, very important.

Clause 27 is important in the sense that the amendment has become necessary due to the amalgamation of unit trust schemes. Where existing prescribed maximum investments, as provided by the Act, will be exceeded when the amalgamation takes place, it is necessary that we make provision for this situation by way of these amendments.

Clause 31 concerns the amalgamation of unit trust portfolios, session, transfer and takeover of the rights of holders of unit certificates, unit trust schemes, etc.

Clauses 38 to 41 deal with pension funds, and some of the hon. members on this side will go into this in detail during the Committee Stage. However, what I find important here is that in clause 40, provision is also made for investments in the Land Bank, and this will also strengthen Land Bank funds.

In clauses 45 to 48 the Banks Act is being amended on the recommendation of a technical committee. We accept this entirely. What we have here is a levelling process, and this is possible because banks balance their books every day in any event.

As regards the changes relating to building societies, they make possible the construction of houses in Black residential areas, particularly with regard to the arrangement concerning transfer fees which are also included. I think that the building societies are most satisfied with the 99-year leasehold system as it is to function under this legislation, and I believe that we shall agree to differ with the hon. member for Yeoville as far as this is concerned.

We wholeheartedly support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill. It has already been through the Other Place where it was argued at considerable length. The hon. the Deputy Minister will remember that there was a particular matter raised and amendments were moved in relation to the restrictions placed upon attorneys and accountants in public practice in terms of clause 23. They are to be prevented from holding listed securities on behalf of other people. The hon. the Deputy Minister will notice that I have amendments which appear on the Order Paper. However, I am very pleased to see that, as always when our party handles things, reason has had its way, and therefore the hon. the Deputy Minister has placed amendments on the Order Paper, which more than cover the situation which we envisage.

His are much better than yours.

Yes, I give that to the hon. the Deputy Minister. A discussion took place and we are happy that the matter has been resolved to everybody’s satisfaction.

I think that in so far as the matter of insurance is concerned I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that a person who is lending money is entitled to be sure that a person taking out a policy is doing it with a reputable firm. I wonder however whether it should not be a matter of agreement between the two parties as to which firm should be approached to give cover in that particular situation. I think that would be an easy way of handling that situation.

The hon. member for Yeoville talked about our party’s intransigence about the rights of married women and that sort of thing. It is a very ticklish point, if I may say so.

But you said that you beat your wife, did you not?

When she needed it, yes. [Interjections.]

I want to assure the House that after a great deal of discussion in our finance group, we have been able to persuade the gentlemen in the Other Place to see reason. We shall actually be supporting that particular provision in the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage.

In relation to the building societies now being able to take part in the drive to provide Black housing in this country, I want to say that this clearly has been an anomaly for a long time. We welcome it very much indeed. We have said repeatedly that until one gets the private enterprise system going in relation to Black housing, one is never going to solve the problem, because the State simply cannot ever in any conceivable form provide enough housing without enlisting the support of the private enterprise system in providing that housing.

We support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, while I wish to thank the official Opposition and the NRP on behalf of this side of the House for their support of the Bill, I cannot omit just to refer in passing to the disappointment which, according to the hon. member for Yeoville, is sometimes felt by policy-holders under the home service business system at the end of such a period. The hon. member for Mooi River referred to the reasonable degree of agreement that could exist between the two parties involved with as regard to a policy of this nature. However, those hon. members will be very much aware of such a disappointment, because both the PFP and the NRP attended such a funeral some time ago, namely the funeral of the old United Party. When I say that I do not wish to intimate that this was a home service business. As it happened, however, they were so disappointed in the undertaker that in fact he is out of work at the moment, and yet he is engaged at present in arranging another funeral, viz. that of the official Opposition. Therefore they are aware of the disappointment such a business entails.

This Bill, particularly clauses 1 to 22 relating to the insurance industry, are characteristic of the Government’s willingness as regards seeing to matters. We appreciate the fact that the legislation relating to our insurance industry is constantly reviewed, because we adopt the standpoint that the dynamic development of the insurance industry in our country is a barometer of the vitality and sophistication of the economy. The fact that the policyholder funds of one of these enterprises at present amounts to R2,7 milliard, attests to a proud achievement. It is an exceptional achievement in our economy that that capital should be accumulated to be used in the service of our communities. The very fine and effective urban building complexes belonging to these insurance organizations speak volumes for the entrepreneuring spirit of those organizations and the entrepreneurs in that sphere.

It would probably not be inappropriate to convey a few words of thanks and appreciation on this occasion to those people who are employed by these insurance organizations, who do the spade work and the street work and go from house to house to offer insurance to people in order to enable them to make provision for the day when they can no longer be economically active. To the extent that people take out policies or provide for annuities, they are less dependent on the State or on charity at a later stage. Another factor I wish to mention that it is gratifying to see that to the extent that the wages of members of the other population groups increase, particularly in recent years, a greater degree of insurance awareness is developing among these people. There is a positive tendency for more and more of our other population groups earning higher wages to begin to take an interest in insurance policies, and this is a praiseworthy development. We take pleasure in supporting this Bill. It is an indication to us that the Government keeps its ear to the ground at all times in order to bring about renewals in this financial sphere.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I want to thank all hon. members who have taken part in the debate for their contributions and, in the second instance, for the support they have given the measure. I should like to mention that as far as this measure is concerned, agreement has been reached with the business enterprises mentioned in the legislation and accordingly I am grateful that there is such a large measure of unanimity in this House concerning these measures.

†Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that it is always necessary to effect changes to this type of legislation. I also agree with the hon. member that the cost of maintaining homes service policies is rather high, but I must draw his attention to the fact that there is quite a big demand for this type of insurance, especially in a country like South Africa with its population. However, I will have another look at the cost involved in selecting the premiums for homes. The hon. member also raised the question of the validity of receipts. I will look into this matter and apply my mind to the hint he gave me here tonight.

*The hon. member for Yeoville also raised the question of the advisory committee here. I want to give him the undertaking that we shall see to it that the advisory committee that is appointed will be fully representative of the insurance industry.

†The hon. member also raised the question of short-term insurance and the solvency margin of the companies conducting such business. I can give the hon. member the assurance that this question is at present receiving the attention of the Registrar of Financial Institutions.

*The question of coercive selling— “gedwonge verkope”—has also been mentioned here. I want to state it as my standpoint that this is a type of thing that we want to eradicate root and branch in South Africa. The money lender is always in a stronger position than the borrower. The money lender makes use of his strong position to compel the borrower to take out insurance with a certain company. However, clause 9 before the House provides that no one may lend or offer to lend money on condition that a person has to take out or renew, vary or cancel any policy. Therefore there is full freedom of choice for the ordinary borrower. It is only where a bond is taken on fixed property that the money lender has the say in determining who the insurer is to be. However, the assurance must be given that the premiums payable under the policy are reasonable in relation to premiums generally charged in respect of any such policy, and I quote—

However I concede that there is full freedom in regard to other loans, but in regard to immovable property there is this problem, and the argument has been raised that in most instances the money lender has a greater interest in the insured property than the borrower. However, we believe in a free enterprise system, and if further problems are experienced, I shall take another look at this matter and will again come to this Parliament with legislation next year. However, I think we must all concede that the present legislation is certainly a considerable improvement on the situation in the past, although I do not wish to suggest that the ideal situation is now being created.

The hon. member also mentioned home service business and unit trust control. In that regard we must bear in mind that the unit holders are mere investors. It is impossible to get such investors at a meeting; and that is the reason for the proposed procedure.

This brings me to clause 31. The hon. member for Yeoville requested me to look at the question of pensions. I want to give him the assurance that I shall consider his proposal, but that the party in question, and in particular the Association of Pension Funds, will have to be consulted. Therefore I cannot effect a change in terms of the hon. members proposal at this point. I shall have to take the matter up with the Association of Pension Funds before effecting any drastic changes.

†I am very glad to learn that the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Mooi River support me on the question of the protection of women and children, as dealt with in clause 49. I am surprised that the hon. member for Germiston District and the hon. member for Houghton did not say anything in this regard. I think the hon. member should thank me for this additional protection that is being granted to women and children in this regard.

It is Helen’s husband who needs protection.

This brings me to the 99-year leasehold scheme. We are now authorizing the development companies of building societies to act. It is not for me or my department to decide on the question of property ownership. This is a decision which the Government must take.

I should also like to refer to the hon. member for Malmesbury and thank him specially for the positive and handsome words he addressed to the office of the Registrar of Financial Institutions. This office and its staff render services of a particularly high quality and I am proud of those people and very grateful that the hon. member for Malmesbury referred to them in such positive terms.

I agree with the hon. member for Malmesbury that sinking fund business has become entirely superfluous. No policies of this kind are being sold in these times. In fact it never was insurance. It was only really a form of investment with a view to building up a capital sum of a certain size in order to replace a capital asset in the future. This type of business has lapsed entirely due to the competition of various other investment media.

I should also like to thank the hon. member for Standerton for his contribution to this debate and also the hon. member for Mooi River, to whom I have already referred. He, too, made a very positive speech.

I shall let that suffice.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, concerning one issue I raised I am not sure whether the hon. the Deputy Minister has adequately dealt with it. I refer to the question of why it is necessary to create a criminal offence in respect of this matter and to put an onus on a person who may be acting perfectly legitimately and properly in respect of every transaction of his. In other words, wherever in a transaction which is really related to a money-lending transaction there is an insurance policy involved, that automatically means that that person could be prosecuted. It then means that the onus is on him to show that he has a defence. I think that is quite unfair in respect of any kind of business transaction. I think that to put this kind of onus on such a person is quite wrong in the circumstances. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with this matter.

I should also like him to deal specifically with the question of the judgment that has to be made as to whether it is reasonable, to use the very words in the Bill, to require that the person concerned, depending on his creditworthiness and on any other securities and relevant considerations, must have a policy. The simple issue is that it may well be that a man who is a moneylender may decide that the only way to safeguard himself is in terms of a life policy, and it may well be that the person concerned is completely creditworthy but that the moneylender does not want to take a chance in respect of that loan and says that he wants the borrower to cede the life policy to him. What can possibly be criminal about that? I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider that, because it does create a situation where ordinary business practices can in fact constitute a problem. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the proposed section 23C(2)(a) should be amended to read as follows—

That would cover the case so that that will be a business judgment as to whether the money-lender wants that security. I should therefore like to move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have any argument with the hon. member for Yeoville in connection with loan coverage or life coverage for loans in general. I do not think that there is any objection whatsoever to the requirement of life coverage with regard to a loan because it is clear that the money-lender has no control over the distribution of the assets of the borrower in the case of his death. That principle that a money-lender can require a borrower to have cover for an amount he is borrowing, is a principle one cannot dispute.

In terms of the clause under discussion an effort is being made to eliminate an undesirable practice which goes much further than merely the question of cover on the life of a borrower. It goes without saying that in our system of free enterprise the State does not compel anyone to market his products in a specific way. The State does not oblige an employer to pay his employee a specific wage or a specific commission, except that in certain cases he has to pay a certain minimum wage which is prescribed by the State. Now, the position has developed over the years that different insurance companies have paid different rates of commission to those marketing their products, whoever they might be. Not only have differing rates of commission come into being, but the method of payment of that commission is also a matter which varies from insurer to insurer. In this regard I only wish to mention three examples. For example, one company pays more immediate cash than another, while another insurer pays its commission over a longer period. For example, one insurer pays the total commission in cash; the other takes other matters into account as part of his commission structure; for example office space, motor-cars, general transportation costs, secretarial services, etc. from part of their compensation, in this way relieving the tax burden on the marketer, broker or insurance representative. One insurer is more broker-oriented and prefers, in other words, to make greater use of outside bodies that do not fall under its direct control, while another relies to a greater extent on field workers or representatives.

The result of all this is that because the insurance industry is a highly competitive industry, it has become possible in recent years to earn a good income by shopping around not only for the best tariffs but also for the most advantageous financing method, something which also varies among insurers. In recent years we have encountered the phenomenon that various bodies— specifically certain brokers—have appeared on the scene. I want to make the statement here this evening that too many intermediaries have made their appearance between the insurer and the general public. For many years we have been hearing from the agricultural industry that the middle-man, the intermediary, derives too much advantage in the process between production and consumption. Exactly the same principle has obtained in recent years in the insurance industry, and, I am tempted to say, in the financing industry in general. It is true that several brokers in our country today maintain that they derive their right of existence from the fact that they are independent of various insurers, that they maintain that they can offer independent advice to the public, whereas the true facts of the matter are that they more often shop around for the best payer rather than the best underwriter. From that it is only a small step to the phenomenon we encounter everywhere in South Africa today, where a borrower has become a good source of revenue for the lender, not only through the interest rate he pays on his loan, but also to related insurance income he can obtain through that borrower. We have seen a situation arise in our country where insurance broking services have become a part of banking in general, and that it where the undesirable practice to which I referred at the outset, begins. For the money lender it is now no longer primarily a matter of cover for an obligation entered into by the borrower, and that is why I, too, agree with the exception made by the Minister in this legislation relating to building societies.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister rightly said, in 99% of building society loans, the interest of the building society loans, the interest of the building societies exceeds the interest of the borrower. The borrower pays a small deposit but the building society is in fact the one who has an interest in this loan transaction. The undesirable practice with regard to other loan transactions is that the money-lender no longer only requires the cover but is also beginning to arrogate to himself the right not only to say that a person should give him cover for this loan, but that he should also apply to a specific intermediary. In other words, the moneylender is beginning to prescribe where the insurance is to be placed. Then it is not long before the borrower finds that he must not only provide cover for his R5 000 overdrawn account, which could cost him a rand or two every month, but that his entire insurance portfolio must be placed in the hands of the intermediary indicated by the money-lender. Two important malpractices arise out of this. In the first place, it limits the free choice of the purchaser to place his business, whether it be insurance or any other form of business, where he feels it is most advantageous. Secondly, it compels the insurance industry, which is today a major capital-forming industry in our society, to become more and more broker-oriented, and when I say “to become broker-oriented”, this means that it is coercing this industry, which is of cardinal importance to our society, to an increasing extent. It is literally blackmailing it to rely to an increasing extent for its marketing on bodies over which it does not have direct control. Any hon. member here will agree with me that if anyone wants to place a product on the market, he wants to be able to exercise his own independent control over the marketing of that product.

We take great pleasure in supporting this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am not very willing to effect an amendment in this connection because, as I have already said, this is an agreed measure. The people with whom we reached an agreement did not foresee problems in this connection. However, I do want to point out that I think that if one takes into account the provisions of clause 9 of the Bill, namely that—

1. (a) for the purposes of securing the debt in question or any other obligation arising from the transaction in question, it was reasonable to require the person concerned, having regard to—
   1. (i) the creditworthiness of the debtor;
   2. (ii) any other securities furnished or offered by the debtor; and
   3. (iii) any other relevant considerations,

… a money-lender who regards a person as a poor risk because he does not have sufficient security and requires him to take out a policy on reasonable grounds, will not experience problems. In any event, such a money-lender could cede an existing policy because the ceding of a policy is not prohibited anywhere in legislation. However, I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that if problems crop up in this connection, if we were to encounter problems in practice, we should most certainly take another look at this measure. However, if one effects a substantial relaxation or concession in this regard one will in fact be emasculating the aim of this provision. I should therefore appreciate it if the hon. member for Yeoville would not insist on his amendment.

I listened attentively to the hon. member for Umlazi. He gave a good explanation of what is going on in the insurance industry particularly with regard to the position of insurance brokers. I should like to thank the hon. member for his contribution.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not see his way clear to accept this amendment. No single argument has in fact been advanced by the hon. the Deputy Minister, either now or during the Second Reading debate, as to why the failure to do this should become a criminal offence. Not one word has been said, and I do not think that there is a reason for it. The second question is why, if it is a criminal offence, the onus should be put on the accused and why the rule for normal criminal cases should not apply. The third point is why one cannot have an ordinary business transaction in terms of which a man says that he wants his loan to be secured by a policy. If a man can say that he will not lend money unless the borrower pledges shares, passes a mortgage bond, or gets a suretyship, why can he not also say that he will not lend the borrower money unless there is the security of insurance? That is the crucial question to which there is no answer, and to my mind, it is a fundamental interference with the concept of free enterprise where there is no need to protect the person in those circumstances. The hon. the Deputy Minister says there is nothing wrong with ceding an existing policy, but if one cedes an existing policy that policy has no value unless there is an undertaking to renew it. This covers the provision which states—

It is quite clear that the term “renew” is in the Bill, and it is quite clear that that means that when one cedes a policy, one must renew it, otherwise there is no point in it at all. Therefore the cessions are in fact covered in these circumstances. I just do not understand how one can have a situation in which anybody is going to lend money on the security of an insurance policy in terms of this, because the moment one lends money on the security of an insurance policy, one puts oneself in jeopardy in regard to a possible criminal prosecution, and I think one would be stupid to do it. All that will happen is that one will stop people from getting loans, because no person who lends money is going to take this risk. What is the issue?

It is not whether he thinks it is reasonable, but whether some magistrate, at some stage in future, is going to consider that it was wrong, in the circumstances, to have taken a policy, because he may say that because the man concerned was obviously a good risk, was credit-worthy and had the ability to pay there was consequently no reason to take out a policy, but whose judgment is that? Surely one can decide, when one is going to lend the money, whether one wants to be adequately secure. I do not understand this argument of saying that one has agreed with all the parties concerned, because it is impossible to have agreed with all the parties who may possibly be in this business of either having to lend money or do one of the other things which is covered in the beginning of the proposed new section 23, because it covers the whole variety, namely lending, rendering or offering to render service, leasing, in fact a whole series of things. So how possibly could every person who is concerned with this have been consulted and it have been agreed upon? I can understand that the building societies, banks or insurance companies have been consulted, but to suggest complete consultation is, to my mind, illogical. My amendment is simple, and if there is a problem—let us assume there will be a problem which will arise later—the hon. the Deputy Minister can close the loophole, but I do not believe there will be one.

May I also ask the hon. the Deputy Minister one other question relating to the proposed new section 23C(2)(b)(ii) which reads—

What is the standard that is going to be applied by the Registrar’s office in regard to what is reasonable, because there are different premiums that can be obtained in respect of the same kind of insurance? Those of us who have shopped around for insurance, in order to get the best terms, know that one can get a variety of rates from different companies. So I would like to know what measure is going to be applied because—and I think support has also come from hon. speakers on the Government side—surely a man is entitled to say that he would like to have a particular, reputable insurance company. The only danger that I see in this is that if a money-lender, who is in the practice generally, has an arrangement with a particular insurance company by which higher premiums are charged for a particular type of business which is introduced, the debtors will be taken for a ride. It is the obligation of the Registrar’s office to watch for that kind of practice, because I would say that that would fall within the definition of an undesirable practice, of which the Registrar should make himself aware. In other words, if there is a deliberate scheme for the charging of higher premiums by particular companies for a particular kind of business, that would be a very serious matter because it would be an abuse in respect of borrowers. So I would like to know what measure is applied here, I make a last appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to agree to what I believe is a more than reasonable amendment, and I promise him that that is the only one I am going to ask him for tonight.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to state clearly once again that what we have in mind here is to impose limits on a practice which is totally undesirable and unfair to the borrowers. In the course of his argument the hon. member for Yeoville referred to the finding of some magistrate in some or other rural place. I do think, however, that the conditions are set out very clearly in the proposed section 23C(2)(a), which reads as follows—

1. (i) the creditworthiness of the debtor;
2. (ii) any other security furnished or offered by the debtor; and
3. (iii) any other relevant considerations

†It must be so that any contravention of the Act constitutes an offence. Any moneylender can say that he will lend money if insurance is provided. However, regard must be had to the creditworthiness of the debtor and any other securities furnished or offered by him.

*It is a widespread phenomenon today that it is expected even of a person who already has an insurance policy to take out further insurance. If one wants credit and one offers a policy, one can still be refused credit. Nowadays the borrower is given no alternative but to take out a policy with a certain company. I want to say to the hon. member that I have honestly not had the time to study his amendment. If I had had the time to study it properly, I should perhaps have been able to give it favourable consideration. I fear however that I could open another loophole if I were to accept this amendment, which may not afford the consumer the necessary protection. I accept the word of the hon. member for Yeoville, but I want to say to him that if I had been able to study this amendment before the time I would quite probably have been able to give it serious consideration. Once again I wish to say that my motive in this regard is to be sure not to leave a loophole for abuses. I give the hon. member for Yeoville the absolute assurance that if it were to appear that the courts experienced difficulties with regard to this provision I would not hesitate to give the matter immediate attention, in order to ensure that the converse did not occur. I am sorry but I cannot comply with the hon. member’s request.

Mr. Chairman, I will be brief and I do not expect the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to what I am going to say.

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister or his department have discussed this particular measure with the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. I say this because I understand that if anybody wishes to borrow money from the Land Bank, the Land Bank normally insists on the borrower of the money taking out life insurance to help to secure the funds which the Land Bank is making available, despite the fact that the borrower might be able to offer very adequate securities in terms of the farm or stock to be purchased. One can well understand and sympathize with their reasons for doing so. If this particular clause goes through, as it is obviously going to without the amendment proposed by my hon. colleague, I believe a situation may arise in which the Land Bank security in terms of loans made to farmers for these very purposes is not going to be as good as it has been before. I think that perhaps the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister will do well to discuss this matter with perhaps the Land Bank, the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or his deputy and might then get some enlightenment in regard to this clause when they realize precisely what is being done to them in terms of this provision.

Mr. Chairman, in the case of a Land Bank loan the proposed new section 23C(2)(b) applies. The issue here is one of mortgaged immovable property and part of the provision reads as follows—

When immovable property is mortgaged the condition is of course that the premiums should be reasonable in relation to the market. However I want to say to the hon. member that I believe that the Land Bank is very competitive in regard to insurance in general. I can also say to the hon. member that I shall in any event take another look at this matter to ensure that it falls entirely within the provisions of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise two matters. Firstly, the provision which the hon. the Deputy Minister read, viz. the proposed new section 23C(2)(b)(ii), relates to insurance of the immovable property itself and not to insurance of the person. That provision only relates to the insurance of the immovable property which has been mortgaged, and it does not relate to, for example, a life insurance policy. So that point is not of much substance.

Secondly, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that he should have received prior notice and I think this is a fair comment. He will, however, concede that we agreed to take the Committee Stage now. If we had not taken the Committee Stage now, he would have had plenty of time to look at it. I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he should let this clause stand over and let us deal with the rest of the provisions of this Bill. If he does not want to deal with this clause this evening, we will agree that we can discuss this clause prior to the Third Reading tomorrow, so that there will be no question of not having the Third Reading at the end of the Committee Stage. He can therefore look at this overnight and obtain whatever advice he needs and we can then dispose of this very quickly tomorrow, because I doubt whether there will be much debate on the Third Reading in any case. I therefore suggest that clause 9 stands over. We can deal with the rest of the provisions of this Bill tonight and dispose of this clause tomorrow and then go on to the Third Reading. I think that is a reasonable request, and I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to accede to this request.

Mr. Chairman, I accede to the request by the hon. member for Yeoville. I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville referred to this clause in his Second Reading speech. The situation is that clause 15 seeks to amend the existing section 57A of the Insurance Act, 1943, which at present reads as follows—

The effect of the amendment contained in the Bill is that certain words are being removed or substituted by certain other words. As a result, the new section 57A will read as follows—

This means this provision is only going to be of effect if the insurer sends somebody to collect the premium. It is not, therefore, going to be of effect if the beneficiary in the policy, or the payer, goes to the office of the insurer, or the agent of the insurer, and says: “I owe you money for this month in terms of this particular policy. Here is the money. Please let me have a receipt.” This is now expressly excluded. Therefore, this provision can only be applied if the insurer sends out a person to collect the premium. I do not think this could possibly have been the intention in amending the legislation. Surely the intention was that both things should be covered, i.e. in whatever circumstances the person paid, he should get a receipt—

I am quite certain in my own mind that that is the reason for the amendment in the Bill this evening. That is not, however, the situation that has resulted. I therefore move as an amendment—

1. (1) On page 17, in line 39, after “policy” to insert:

This would mean that the clause would now read as follows—

I further move as a consequential amendment—

So whoever receives the money, in terms of the insurance policy, a receipt will have to be issued, clearly indicating—

I do not know whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will have the same problem he had with my hon. colleague on clause 9. Perhaps he might like to think about this. I freely confess that the amendments I have moved have been somewhat hastily drawn up in view of the fairly unseemly haste with which we have gone through the Order Paper. I would be quite happy if the hon. the Deputy Minister first wanted to have a look at this, consider it and perhaps even come up with an amendment along the same lines himself, an amendment which might be tidier in the circumstances. I am certainly convinced in my own mind, however, that the amendment on the Order Paper does not meet the relevant circumstances that the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department wish to cover.

Mr. Chairman, I shall accept those amendments. They are quite in line with what we intend.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23:

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

1. (d) an attorney practising as such on his own account or in partnership or as a member of a professional company; or
2. (e) an accountant or auditor registered in terms of the Public Accountants’ and Auditors’ Act, 1951 (Act No. 51 of 1951), as an accountant and auditor and engaged in public practice as such; or
3. (f) a person approved by the registrar or a person who is a member of a category of persons approved by the registrar,

1. (a) unless he—
   1. (i) either for himself or for any other person, directly or indirectly, canvasses, advertises or touts for any work being the administration or safe custody of such securities; or
   2. (ii) receives any valuable consideration (other than fees normally charged by an attorney or an accountant or auditor referred to in subsection (1) for services rendered) for the administration or custody of such securities; or
2. (b) if such securities form part of the assets—
   1. (i) in any deceased or insolvent estate and he is the executor, administrator or trustee concerned or a person administering or holding in safe custody such securities on behalf of such executor, administrator or trustee; or
   2. (ii) of any person under curatorship and he is the curator concerned or a person administering or holding in safe custody such securities on behalf of such curator; or
   3. (iii) of a company in liquidation or under judicial management and he is the liquidator or judicial manager concerned or a person administering or holding in safe custody such securities on behalf of such liquidator or judicial manager; or
   4. (iv) of a trust inter vivos and he is the trustee concerned or a person administering or holding in safe custody such securities on behalf of such trustee; or
   5. (v) of a minor and he is the guardian concerned or a person administering or holding in safe custody such securities on behalf of such guardian.

Mr. Chairman, I have two questions to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister. Firstly, what conditions does he have in mind to have imposed in terms of his amendment? At the present moment, as I read the provisions, the question of imposing conditions does not apply to all the people at present involved. After the hon. the Deputy Minister’s amendment, however, it seems to me that the imposed conditions apply not only to the attorneys and accountants he has added, but also to all the others to which there was previously no question of attaching conditions. I do not know whether that was his intention. My view is, however, that all the persons or bodies he has listed, i.e. stockbrokers, banking institutions, companies registered as management companies under the Unit Trust Control Act, attorneys and accountants should not have conditions attached to them. Conditions to be imposed should only apply to persons approved by the Registrar on such conditions as he may impose. I think that is what he intended, but it seems to me that now the net has been cast a little wider than it was originally. I wonder whether he could perhaps deal with that and whether we could not perhaps put that right?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say briefly that my intention was to treat everyone on an equal basis.

Mr. Chairman, may I then ask the hon. the Deputy Minister for an answer to my second question. If the hon. the Deputy Minister now wants to impose conditions in respect of stockbrokers, banks and unit trust companies, what does he actually have in mind? What conditions does he want to impose on them, as he previously did not want to impose any conditions on them?

Mr. Chairman, most of these institutions already comply with the conditions we impose, such as proper bookkeeping, proper safe custody and proper agreements. I just want to extend those conditions so that they will be applicable to other categories of people and institutions as well.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38:

Mr. Chairman, the amendments moved on the Pension Funds Act, will without doubt bring about great improvements. Of course, that is not to say that the Act as it reads at present, is faulty. I should just like to remind hon. members that in Programme 5 of the Finance Vote the aim of control over financial institutions is formulated as follows—

This means that the State is accepting the responsibility in so many words of ensuring that the public’s money that is invested in pensions funds, will be safe. The State gives the assurance that it will not allow these institutions to play around with the public’s money. I am satisfied that they have succeeded with this objective. I am also satisfied that the proposals that I am not going to tabulate now, will contribute further towards achieving these objectives. Our financial institutions in this country do not have to pull the wool over any one’s eyes in any respect.

This investment in pension funds is possibly the largest single factor in the process of capital formation and provision in a free enterprise country. Saving for one’s old age and investing in pension and provident funds is the most important factor in capital formation. At the end of 1978, the assets of private pension funds amounted to approximately R600 million. This showed a growth rate of 20% per annum, which means that at the end of this year R900 million will be available from this source. In addition, the largest portion of long-term insurance, which already amounted to R7 500 million at the end of 1978, also comes from pension provision. At present approximately R250 million per month is being added to the assets of these businesses. This is by far the most important source of capital formation in the private sector, and therefore it is practically the duty of the State to support these institutions and even to pamper them. That is why the provisions in the legislation under discussion to establish that control beyond any doubt, are to be welcomed.

The greatest security and the greatest possible feeling of stability may never be wanting with regard to these institutions. An extension piece of this responsibility of the State is the fact that when each pensioner retires, he will have a sum of money available to begin his own business. For some of these people it may be the first time in their lives that they have a sum of money at their disposal. It is important for such a person because in this way he is in a position to open his own business, which he might have been dreaming about all his life. I want to remind hon. members in particular that with the participation of non-Whites in pension funds, there can be a reasonable expectation that as soon as these people also begin drawing their pension money, they will be in a position to form a block of small businesses, with employment and all the other concomitant matters. I also remind hon. members that, in the eight years before 1977, small businesses provided 5,5 million of 9 million employment opportunities in the USA.

I do not want to say anything more. I just want to welcome these amendments in connection with improvements to the Pension Funds Act. I believe it plays an important role in the economy of the whole country, and will play an even greater one in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to thank the hon. member for Koedoespoort for his contribution to this discussion.

I feel that I cannot but mention tonight that when I first became a member of the Transvaal Provincial Council 15 years ago, the hon. member for Koedoespoort was the Administrator of the Transvaal. When I delivered my first speech there, he was the one who replied to it. Now it is a particular pleasure for me tonight to be able to reply to a person of his standing and reputation in this House.

The hon. the Deputy Minister was a very difficult member of the provincial council.

He was a very disobedient member.

Yes, he never wanted to listen to his Whips.

I want to assure the hon. member for Koedoespoort that I agree with him wholeheartedly. The fact of the matter is that pension funds are an extremely important factor in the process of capital formation. That is why it is necessary for proper supervision and proper control to be exercised in that regard.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 49:

Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. the Deputy Minister will be disappointed if I do not speak to this clause, although I have to say right away that the hon. member for Yeoville has made most of the relevant points in connection with this clause. I should like, however, to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he may well go down in history as having taken a tiny step towards the recognition of married women as intelligent human beings in introducing this amendment to the Banks Act.

Women must be intelligent if they marry us. [Interjections.]

I must say it is very disappointing to the women of South Africa who were hoping that there would be a much bigger step taken during this parliamentary session towards the recognition of the rights of married women and towards removing a lack of contractual capacity, which is what they suffer from at the present stage. We were hoping that the Matrimonial Property Amendment Bill would be introduced during this session. So far there has been no sign of it, although the law commission produced a Bill some months ago— indeed, last year—which has been circulated for comment for a number of months. I think the final date for comment was the end of April. So far there has been no sign, however, of any amending Bill as a result of that. We do, however, have this one small amendment, which does at least give minors and married women some recognition. I must tell the hon. the Minister immediately, however, that one objects very strongly, as a married woman, to being classified with minors. It is absurd. It is an old South African custom to classify married women— whether they are married in or out of community of property—together with minors or, I might say, lunatics for that matter. Married women object to this very strongly. [Interjections.]

I want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that today something like one-third of the gainfully occupied work force in South Africa consists of women, many of whom are married women running businesses, conducting their own professional occupations and who are indeed contributing a great deal to the national income of South Africa. It is high time that this was recognized in law. Women may now, as a result of this amending Bill, open bank accounts without either getting their husbands’ permission, if they are married in community of property, or producing an antenuptial contract if they are married out of community of property. Even excluding the marital power it is highly irritating for a married woman to have to produce her antenuptial contract every time she wants to open a bank account, to buy shares, use her own money the way she wishes to, to sign a hire-purchase agreement or even for that matter to sign a job contract. I hope this is the beginning of a new phase in the recognition of the responsibilities of married women and the fact that they are fully able to manage their own affairs.

I agree with you, Helen; we must stop this discrimination.

Mr. Chairman, the fact that we are referring to married women and minors in the same clause here really does not mean to imply that we want to equate married women with minors. Not at all. The two are being mentioned in the same clause because these are two categories we want to protect under the legislation. The hon. member for Houghton should please not take exception to this.

You need protection against me.

It is very well meant, and that is the assurance I want to give the hon. member for Houghton and all the women in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I had intended moving an amendment to this clause, but, unfortunately, as it would involve an amendment of the Stock Exchange Act, which is not before the House at the present time, I cannot move an amendment. However, I have already raised it with a very senior official in the Office of the Registrar and I should also like to put it specifically to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The point I am making is that if we are going to allow married women and minors, and I include both in this category without disrespect to either, to open banking accounts and to operate, not only in terms of this section, but also in terms of the Building Societies Act, with which we all agree, then I think they should also be allowed to purchase shares on the Stock Exchange, to sign transfer forms and to deal with matters of that sort. It is illogical that they should be allowed to deal with one investment medium and not with another. I believe in this day and age, with inflation and matters of that sort, that this should receive attention, and I would therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give consideration to this matter so that when he comes with the Bill next year, as I indicated earlier, we shall see in that a provision in terms of which married women and minors, but not lunatics, if I may add, should be allowed to purchase shares on the Stock Exchange.

I shall give consideration to that request.

Clause agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

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

Copies of the draft Bill and the explanatory memorandum were made available to certain hon. members on both sides of the House before the Bill was read a First Time, to enable them to study it.

This year, apart from the amendments which have become necessary as a result of the rationalization of the Public Service and the usual clause in connection with the continued existence of amendments to the schedules of the Act and the dates on which certain amendments come into force, the Bill only contains amendments which are aimed at facilitating the administration of the Act and bringing it abreast of new developments.

The fact that Customs and Excise has now been integrated with the Department of Finance and that the designation of the Secretary for Customs and Excise has been changed to Commissioner for Customs and Excise, has necessitated certain amendments to the principal Act. Clauses 1, 2, 3, 15 and 16 give effect to these altered circumstances.

Section 7(1) of the principal Act, provides, as it reads at present that the master of any ship shall within 24 hours after the ship’s arrival, and the pilot of any aircraft arriving in the Republic shall within three hours after landing, make due report in writing of the arrival of such ship or aircraft and comply with other requirements before the landing or embarkation of passengers or crew or the landing or loading of goods. With the change-over to container traffic, such provision can no longer be enforced in practice, since container ships start landing or loading goods immediately after they have docked. Nor is it practical any longer to enforce these provisions in the case of aircraft. Therefore the restrictive provision is now being removed by means of clause 4 of the Bill, and in order to facilitate the administration further, the discretionary powers for the granting of further time in which to report is being transferred from the Commissioner for Customs and Excise to the Controller of Customs and Excise. It should be mentioned that the latter officials are the heads of the district offices, inter alia, at the Republic’s international airports and seaports and are therefore pre-eminently the proper officials to grant a further extension in loco.

The authority to prescribe the method by which the strength of spirits and spirit preparations shall be ascertained is being transferred by means of clause 5 from the hon. the Minister to the Commissioner for Customs and Excise, since it relates only to a process in the practical administration of the Act and no fundamental grounds exist for the Minister to be charged with this responsibility.

I should like to point out that the hydrometer which is being used at the moment to determine the alcohol content of spirits, is no longer readily available. It is therefore essential that another suitable instrument should be found. The Commissioner for Customs and Excise, in consultation with the KWV, the Oenological and Viticultural Research Institute and the CSIR, is at present investigating a suitable instrument to replace the hydrometer currently in use.

Clause 6 simply makes it clear that the provision relating to the labelling of beer does not apply to beer which is exported.

Section 37(2) of the main Act provides, inter alia, what duties shall be payable when goods are blended in customs and excise warehouses. Section 37(6) provides at the moment that the Commissioner may apply said subsection (2) should the goods become mixed by accident. The proposed amendment in clause 7 is of a mere technical nature in the sense that the circumstances in which the Commissioner may exercise his discretionary powers is now being more clearly defined. Whereas the words “by accident” at present lend themselves to all manner of divergent interpretations by any person who is affected by this provision, the proposed amendment should leave such person in no doubt as to what his claims are in terms of the Act.

†Mr. Speaker, I shall now deal with clause 8 and 12.

Clause 9(a) does not require any clarification. Section 47(1) of the principal Act is amended merely to empower the Commissioner for Customs and Excise to condone an underpayment in duty in certain circumstances. This amendment accords with the provisions of section 76(5) of the principal Act, which disallow applications for refunds of duty in similar circumstances. In terms of the Ottawa Agreements Act, 1933 (Act No. 8 of 1933), South Africa allowed the importation of certain goods from Commonwealth countries at preferential rates of duty. South African goods were in turn accorded preferential treatment by these countries. The agreements granting such reciprocal preferential rates of duty have, however, terminated, hence the deletion of section 47(2) by clause 9((b). The amendments to subsections 47(3) and (4) as well as the amendment to section 48 by clauses 9(c) and (d) and 10, respectively, are consequential to the proposed deletion of subsection 47(2).

Clause 11 makes provision for the calculation of the value of any exported goods to the nearest rand thereby eliminating fractions. The amendment is made to facilitate the flow of export bills of entry under the computerized system to be introduced by the Commissioner for Customs and Excise.

Clause 13 is the usual clause to provide for the continuation of certain amendments of Schedules Nos. 1 to 7 to the principal Act and the dates on which some of these amendments became effective. In terms of Schedule No. 8 to the principal Act licence fees are payable for specific purposes. Item 810.20.20 provides for the licensing of special customs and excise warehouses for sales duty purposes. As sales duty has been replaced by ad valorem excise duty, clause 14 amends the wording of the item by substituting “ad valorem excise duty” for “sales duty” with retrospective effect to 3 July 1978, the date on which sales duty was abolished and replaced by ad valorem excise duty.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill. However, there are a number of matters which I would like to touch on.

Firstly, I would like to deal with the change in the description of the Commissioner for Customs and Excise, referred to in clause 1. It is not really a change, because we have always referred to him in that context. However, I think at this stage it is not inappropriate to mention the degree of co-operation which we as ordinary members of Parliament have received from that office in the regard to the problems which we have had. I should like to thank the Commissioner and his officials for that cooperation, which we do value at all times.

You should call him the High Commissioner.

This Commissioner is a fairly tough cookie. But that is not relevant at the moment. However, we do receive very great co-operation.

Now I should like to, if I may, deal with some of the other aspects of the Bill. It should not go without comment that this Bill terminates the provisions in the legislation which relate to the Ottawa Agreement. I think it is regrettable for most South Africans that these preferential arrangements which existed between South Africa and countries in the Commonwealth, to which we once belonged, have come to an end. We believe that mutual trade arrangements between nations are extremely important. I, and I am sure everybody else in this House, have regrets about it that we have an inadequate number of mutual trade arrangements of this nature. I want to say that I for one would wish that we had a closer association with the European Economic Community, because that would really be the most important trade association that we could have. However, political circumstances make that impossible. We cannot really allow the Ottawa agreement to finally come to pass without some comment on it.

Then I also have some, perhaps personal, regrets in regard to the passing of the hydrometer, because if one looks back at history and one’s legal practice, one sees how this instrument has given rise to large numbers of court cases. It has been used in a large number of instances. That hydrometer has actually rendered very valuable service in the whole sphere of excise legislation. Its passing should also not go unnoticed.

However, at the same time as we say “goodbye” to old friends, we say “hello” to the new methods, such as the microfilm method, which has now been introduced and which we welcome. It shows again that legislation must keep up to date with the developments as they take place.

However, I should like to refer to some other matters which particularly arise from the various matters that have to be ratified. The first matter to which I want to refer is the question of the import levy which has been abolished. I must tell hon. members that we supported the concept of the abolition of the import levy. We believed it was a weapon against inflation. But I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister—I have said it before—that unfortunately the import levy is not in all cases being passed on to the consumer and that the abolition of the import levy in many cases has merely resulted in higher profits for the people who do the importing. I believe there rests a duty on the authorities to see to it that when they abolish an import levy of this kind and which seeks to be an anti-inflationary measure, people do not sabotage the situation. Inflation poses a very serious danger to South Africa, and in our view action is therefore needed to ensure that this levy is passed on to the consumer. I think that if one looks at what is happening at the moment, it is quite clear that there is an increase in imports. This has been demonstrated by the official figures that have been published. The idea was that imports would be increased in order to fight the concept of demand inflation. However, it also appears that the imports are coming into South Africa at extremely high prices and are actually in many respects adding to the cost-push inflation that already exists in South Africa. That is a matter which greatly concerns us.

I think it also needs to be said, and this relates to a further issue in respect of which I propose to move an amendment in the Committee Stage, that the impact of increasing oil prices to South Africa as regards inflation is a serious one. If one takes note of what has transpired at the most recent Opec conference, it is clear that one can expect even further increases in oil prices. In those circumstances we believe that some contribution to the fight against inflation must also be made in this legislation. In our view the situation is that very often all that is said about oil prices is that they merely have an impact on the users of motor-cars, while it actually affects the whole spectrum of the economy in the form of direct and indirect increases, and some contribution must be made by the fiscus in respect of the increased oil prices so that they do not have this inflationary impact on the whole economy. In this regard I want to refer to one item in respect of which I propose to move an amendment. We welcomed and were very happy to see that provision was being made for a partial rebate of excise duty on petrol, aviation spirit, kerosene, distillate fuels and residual fuel oils cleared for home consumption. That concession, that rebate was desirable, because in the main this is used by the poorer people of the community, in particular by the Black people of South Africa, who are suffering very heavily under the impact of inflation. It was therefore with considerable regret and with some degree of horror that we saw that that concession, which was given in April 1979, was withdrawn in October 1979. We believe that is wrong. In the fight against inflation and in order to assist the poorest people of South Africa, there should be such a concession and such a rebate. Therefore we propose to move in the Committee Stage that this rebate should be reinstated, and we hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will see his way clear to do so.

Those are the comments that I want to make on this Bill at this stage and we will support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, with the rationalization of the Public Service, the inclusion of the financial departments under one Director-General is logical and obvious. However, since we are dealing here with a specialized collection department it is necessary for the distinctiveness of that department to be recognized. That is why we are grateful that the hon. the Minister saw his way clear to grant autonomous recognition to this department. I should like to associate myself with the thanks which the hon. member for Yeoville expressed towards this department. It is necessary that provision be made for the introduction of the office of Commissioner for Customs and Excise and the creation of an Office for the Commissioner for Customs and Excise. I want to add my personal congratulations to those of the hon. member for Yeoville to the Commissioner, Mr. Dirk Odendal, who has become the first Commissioner of this department and who is abroad in his official capacity at the moment. Mr. Odendal devoted a lifetime to this department, and I am grateful that in the last stage of his service he can continue his work in this office of Commissioner.

If we look at the budget programme, it is summarized briefly as follows: To determine the policy in co-operation with the departmental head with regard to the levying of customs and excise duty and surcharge; to collect such duties and taxes; to exercise control over the import, export and manufacture of certain goods and to collect sales tax on certain imported goods. If we look at the Bill before us, we see that once again this department has succeeded in establishing absolute control. All the proposed amendments have been introduced, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, to bring about better administration, and we have found this to be the case. The amendments with regard to schedules 1 to 7, amendments recommended by the Board of Trade and Industries, were introduced with a view to relief of customs and excise duty, which in the nature of things is accepted gratefully by all.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the phasing out of surcharge. It would be a pity if this relief were not to filter through to the consumer. However, I think we must blame this upon the sectors involved and not look for Government bodies to accept responsibility for it. Together with him we want to ask that this relief in tax should filter through to the public. We on this side of the House are very pleased to support this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House, as hon. members have said, is very largely an administrative measure dealing with the rationalization of the departmental set-up. I should like to echo the words of the hon. member for Yeoville by conveying our thanks to the department for what it has done for us in the past, the information it has given us and also the understanding it has given us of the workings of the department.

I want to raise again the point I raised last year when I moved for the deletion of the 7,5% surcharge, something that was voted against by hon. members on that side of the House. I must say I found it ironic that in the course of the year the department abolished it. Here I am specifically talking about the surcharge on tractors. I moved for its abolishment last year to afford a measure of relief to the farming community.

There are two items in the schedules to which I should like to refer later on when we get round to discussing them. I shall be moving certain amendments in that regard, because a reduction in input costs would, in this regard, also assist the farming community.

There is one thing I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, if he is not too busy. I should like to refer to the speech the hon. the Deputy Minister made, because there is something I do not understand. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to clear up the issue for me. It is actually a matter of wording, but I should like him to clarify this matter for me. I am referring to the reference made to clause 5 on page 2 of the explanatory memorandum, which is the same as that in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech. The Sykes hydrometer is said not to be suitable for the purposes for which it was used previously but it is also said that it had not been found possible to do experimental work with other hydrometers. It goes on to say—

So he could delegate his authority in terms of section 118—

So the hon. the Minister can delegate his powers in terms of section 118, but there are no reasons for vesting the power in the Minister. Surely it is presumed that the hon. the Minister should have the power, but there are no reasons for vesting such power in the hon. the Minister. I cannot understand what the department or the hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to say in this regard. I do understand that the hon. the Minister can vest his power in someone else or delegate it to someone else, but I do not understand why it should be said that there are no reasons for vesting the power in the hon. the Minister. If it was said that there are no reasons for vesting the power in the Commissioner, the Controller or somebody else, I would be able to understand it. There being no fundamental reason for vesting the power in anyone else I could well understand, but not as it is stated here. I should therefore like some kind of clarification from the hon. the Deputy Minister when he replies to the Second Reading debate.

Clause 6, which deals with beer sold for home consumption, puzzled me for a considerable while. I suppose the term “beer sold for home consumption” is a standard term. Should the term not relate to consumption within the borders of South Africa? For a long while I wondered whether “home consumption” meant that one bought the beer, took it home and consumed it there. I now understand that this relates to beer consumed within the borders of South Africa and not to beer which is meant for export beyond the borders of South Africa.

We shall support the Second Reading of this Bill, although in the memorandum there are certain items relating to the Schedules, but I should like to deal with them during the Committee Stage. I shall also move certain amendments for the deletion of certain items which I regard as unjustified.

Mr. Speaker, once again we are discussing a Bill that constitutes part of a modernization process, as is evident from various clauses. The changes in clause 1 are essential due to rationalization.

Clause 4 deals with the changes with regard to containerization. New circumstances demand new practices. I think we may be proud of the fact that this department has changed over so quickly to the new method and that the necessary changes have already been brought about in the legislation.

Clause 5 interested me a great deal. In the wheat industry we use various types of hydrometers to measure the moisture content of wheat. However, as soon as we think that we have found the ideal solution, technology develops so rapidly that we have to buy new hydrometers once again. In the wine industry we also managed for many years with Syke’s hydrometer, but in this sphere too, technology has brought about new developments, and we are making provision for that.

Clause 8 also deals with modernization, viz. the introduction of microfilm. One can spend a long time discussing the very interesting aspects of the advantages of microfilm. One simply has to look at our own Parliamentary cutting service, and how convenient it has been made for us to obtain newspaper cuttings, that have been put on microfilm, in order to realize the value of this development of technology. I once had the privilege of seeing how the schedule of stock of a large enterprise such as Iscor, that had been placed on microfilm, was readily available. One can trace any item of stock within seconds, which would have been completely impossible according to the old methods. Here too, where we are dealing with massive amounts of documentation, it is a very good thing that we are using this modern technology too.

As far as the cancellation of the Ottawa agreement is concerned, I want to say that of course one is sorry when agreements that worked well in the past, can no longer be maintained. However, this did not take place because of us, but it was forced upon us. With Britain’s entry to the EEC, these commonwealth preferences fell away, not only with regard to South Africa, but to all the commonwealth countries.

Clause 11 is another interesting clause. By means of eliminating fractions and rounding off the figures, the whole administrative procedure is now being simplified a great deal.

As the hon. member for Yeoville said last year, it can in fact be said that this type of legislation that is introduced every year, actually means that Parliament is just a rubber stamp. The amendments that are being made to the books here, are already there, and we are therefore actually just authorising what has already been done. Unfortunately we cannot follow a different procedure here. It is necessary for the hon. the Minister to have the necessary powers to make amendments to customs and excise on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries while Parliament is not in session. If we have to wait for a Parliamentary session each time to amend customs and excise, we will have a very clumsy administration. Particularly now where we are having large volumes of imports and where the economy is developing very rapidly, it may become necessary to amend tariffs at very short notice, in some cases to increase them and in some cases to decrease them.

When do they decrease?

Fairly soon, I hope. In terms of section 48 of the Act the Minister has that authorization. I think it is a good thing that this is the case.

We are pleased to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I want to refer to the hon. member for Yeoville. The preferential rates of duty were withdrawn when Great Britain joined the EEC. South Africa is now merely following suit. The hon. member also raised the question of the hydrometer, and I can assure him as far as this is concerned his sentiments are shared by Customs and Excise. In this respect I must mention that the Sykes hydrometer is no longer manufactured.

The question regarding the rebate on petroleum products will be replied to in the Committee Stage when the hon. member moves his amendment.

*The hon. member for Mooi River referred here to the question of the surcharge on imports. I still remember very well that the hon. member made a moving plea for the abolition of the surcharge on imports in last year’s debate. Similarly many members on this side of the House and many other persons and bodies made a plea for the abolition of the surcharge. Hon. members on my side of the House make their pleas to me in the caucus and in the study groups. They do not do it here. Here they agree with me. Hon. members on this side of the House requested it very, very earnestly; make no mistake. [Interjections.] Of course I am giving the hon. member for Mooi River credit for it. Have I not said that he, too, requested it. We undertook to abolish the surcharge on imports as soon as the economy recovers. Everyone aggitated for the abolition of the surcharge on imports, but many of those people who requested it very enthusiastically, are not passing this on to the public. I really find this regrettable. One often asks oneself whether one should abolish such duties, since they are not, after all, passing it on to the public. Should one then not rather retain this type of duty? I regret that the surcharge is not in all cases being passed on to the public, but I do understand that there are actually some bodies and persons who do act in a responsible way in this connection and who do pass the rebate on to the public.

I want to thank the hon. member for Gezina for his wonderful words on the Department of Customs and Excise. It is indeed an excellent department.

What do they do?

They do a lot of good. They render an invaluable service to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries at the airports and at the harbours to see to it that his products go in and out properly and that the wrong things do not enter the country. If it were not for the Department of Customs and Excise the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries would experience a great deal of trouble in South Africa.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for his support and his contribution to this debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.